Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Great Pyramid's Greatest Secret (Hidden in Plain Sight)


Scott Creighton

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Not going to spoon feed you. Do your own research.

SC

You started the thread, you make various statements, which is for you to defend. It is for anybody who joins the thread to ask you questions, not the other way around. You quoted Velikovsky on the matter of the nature of Horakhty, and engaged in evasions and diversions when I questioned you, and eventually it wasn't you who produced the original text, but Windowpane. Why did you not produce this text straight way? Well, it was clearly because you had just lifted a quote from Velikovsky without checking where it came from, and have been floundering around and chucking out chaff. It's you who need to do the research, not those of us asking questions on your OP, or rather a video that I for a start will not watch because I want an exposition written here.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Ah - you found it. Well done you.

...

More to the point, Scott: why, given that this text was being presented as supposed evidence of ancient pole-flipping, did you not find the source yourself, rather than rely on (oh, dear ... )  Velikovsky?  [Edit: I see now that Wepwawet has already made a similar observation].

Quote

...

First question - where have I said that this quote was from the Pyramid Texts?

...

You didn't say that.  George Hart said it (see my post here, #80).  

Quote

Second question - where did the the authors of the 19th Dynasty get such an idea?

Well: if you read #99 #100 (and  #98), you'll see that Kenemet and Wepwawet have explained some of the intricacies of AE religious thought, and how its development resulted in such texts as we see in the Tomb of Horemheb/Harmhab.  Breasted goes on to say that the hymn of which the cited text forms part:

Quote

... is very interesting, but not historically important.

 

Edited by Windowpane
add more detail
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject oScott's claim ( #29 ) that:

 

Quote

There are now many scientific papers that have been published over the past 10 years or so that demonstrate (from a maths/physics analysis) that the Earth can indeed rapidly invert itself ...

 

Not from the last ten years, admittedly: but, in Void (as some readers might recall) Scott relies heavily on the work of George F. Dodwell (who, amongst other things, believed in the literal truth of Noah's Flood) and in particular on:

CHAPTER  1: THE MOVEMENT OF THE EARTH’S AXIS OF ROTATION IS EVIDENCE OF A  
               DISTURBANCE OF THE EARTH’S AXIS IN ANCIENT TIMES

in a posthumously published paper entitled The Obliquity of the Ecliptic

(Dodwell's work is discussed here).

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flinders Petrie wrote of the plate in The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (1883):

That sheet iron was employed, we know, from the fragment found by Howard Vyse in the masonry of the south air channel, and though some doubt has been thrown on the piece, merely from its rarity, yet the vouchers for it are very precise, and it has a cast of a nummulite on the rust of it, proving it to have been buried for ages beside a block of nummulitic limestone, and therefore to be certainly ancient. No reasonable doubt can therefore exist about its being really a genuine piece used by the pyramid masons, and probably such pieces were required to prevent crowbars biting into the stones, and to ease the actions of the rollers. (p. 212-13)”

Sorry to burst your bubble boys. 

http://www.catchpenny.org/iron.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt (p. 11) has:

But this is from the 19th Dynasty, not the Pyramid Texts: so perhaps this is what follows on from the Middle Kingdom adoption you mention.

I think I tentatively know what this means. We have the line from the Horemheb text that goes "He riseth in the West", which has been assumed to mean that this is the Sun rising in the West. The issue here, apart from the false assumption, is with the word "riseth", and does it mean literally rising up, like the dawn Sun. There is a line of text in the 12th Hour of the Amduat that goes, "The name of this gate is 'That which raises the gods'", and a line from the Closing Text, which reads, "The course of Ra in the West".

Now while the main event in the 12th Hour is the rebirth of Ra and the rising of the Sun/Khepri in the new dawn, but the text I quoted is about the gate to the 12th Hour, not about the mechanics of "rising Ra" at dawn.This is a metaphorical "rising", rather like in more modern times a person may be "raised up" in society, given a knighthood in the UK for instance, it does not mean they have literally risen upwards.

The other text, "The course of Ra in the West" seems odd at first when it is part of the closing text when Ra has already risen on the new dawn in the East, but it is a recap of what has transpired since the previous dusk, the setting of the Sun, the death of Ra-Atum. So I think perhaps the sense of the Horemheb text might be that this is indeed about Ra in the West, that much is clear, but the "rising" is not the rising of the new Sun, but the elevated position, in importance, of Ra.

I may be wrong, but I cannot find at this time any other explanation which fits with known Egyptian beliefs, and is also rational.

Edit: To put this in sort of Christian type terms, perhaps the Horemheb text is describing the "Triumph of Ra over death" in that he has "Risen over the place, the Duat with it's entrance in the West, of death". Maybe, I don't know.

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

You started the thread, you make various statements, which is for you to defend. It is for anybody who joins the thread to ask you questions, not the other way around. You quoted Velikovsky on the matter of the nature of Horakhty, and engaged in evasions and diversions when I questioned you, and eventually it wasn't you who produced the original text, but Windowpane. Why did you not produce this text straight way? Well, it was clearly because you had just lifted a quote from Velikovsky without checking where it came from, and have been floundering around and chucking out chaff. It's you who need to do the research, not those of us asking questions on your OP, or rather a video that I for a start will not watch because I want an exposition written here.

Yes, I quoted Velikovsky - my source. If you want to see the primary source, do your own research. That's how it normally works.

SC  

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Yes, I quoted Velikovsky - my source. If you want to see the primary source, do your own research. That's how it normally works.

SC  

I asked you what the primary source was, because one fringe author quoting another does just not cut the mustard. Had you bothered to do your research and found the source of Velikovsky's quote, when I asked for the source you could have given me the correct answer straight away, but no, you could not as you have not done due diligence on your sources. The ugly line of posts that then followed was entirely your fault, because had you provided the source I would have straight away given you the answer I gave to Windowpane in two posts this morning. You, the thread starter, doing research before making any statements, so that you can then have a ready answer to questions is now it should work, but not of course with you and the rest of the fringe, who thrive on obfuscation and evasion.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poles of Earth's magnetic field have "flipped" sereval times in the extremely distant past.  But that should only affect whether a magnetic compass points to the north or south.   

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/#:~:text=Magnetic Pole Reversals&text=While that may sound like,the past 160 million years.

"Paleomagnetic records tell us Earth’s magnetic poles have reversed 183 times in the last 83 million years, and at least several hundred times in the past 160 million years. The time intervals between reversals have fluctuated widely, but average about 300,000 years, with the last one taking place about 780,000 years ago."

Edited by atalante
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

“The origins of Western astronomy can be found in Mesopotamia, the "land between the rivers" Tigrisand Euphrates, where the ancient kingdoms of Sumer, Assyria, and Babylonia were located. A form of writing known as cuneiform emerged among the Sumerians around 3500–3000 BC. Our knowledge of Sumerian astronomy is indirect, via the earliest Babylonian star catalogues dating from about 1200 BC. The fact that many star names appear in Sumerian suggests a continuity reaching into the Early Bronze Age. Astral theology, which gave planetary gods an important role in Mesopotamian mythology and religion, began with the Sumerians. “

FROM 1200BC.

It’s not even a matter of Herodotus lying, he tells us it’s Khufu (Cheops) who directed the building but not 2000 years before his time. It’s whether we believe they incorporated iron in 2600BC…

 

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that Professor Petrie has discovered iron in deposits of VIth Dynasty date at Abydos, the contentions of those Egyptologists who have always maintained that iron was known to the Egyptians from the earliest times must be acknowledged to be correct. The fact that iron was known to, and used by, the Egyptians over 2,000 years before it came into use in Europe is very remarkable, and it is hard to square with current theories, but it is a fact.”

Is it?

So the Iron Age started at 2600BC in Egypt did it?

“This is the third find of iron which can be attributed to the Old Kingdom. In 1837 a fragment of wrought-iron was discovered in an inner joint of the stone blocks in one of the air-passages which pass upwards from the interior of the Great Pyramid to the outer air…

http://www.catchpenny.org/iron.html

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

Flinders Petrie wrote of the plate in The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (1883):

That sheet iron was employed, we know, from the fragment found by Howard Vyse in the masonry of the south air channel, and though some doubt has been thrown on the piece, merely from its rarity, yet the vouchers for it are very precise, and it has a cast of a nummulite on the rust of it, proving it to have been buried for ages beside a block of nummulitic limestone, and therefore to be certainly ancient. No reasonable doubt can therefore exist about its being really a genuine piece used by the pyramid masons, and probably such pieces were required to prevent crowbars biting into the stones, and to ease the actions of the rollers. (p. 212-13)”

Sorry to burst your bubble boys. 

http://www.catchpenny.org/iron.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I asked you what the primary source was. . .

No, you did not ask that in your original request. Here's what you asked:

Quote

"Please provide the text in full so that we can all read it and see the context." - from here.

Even although you already had my source (Velikovsky) which you could have used to find the primary source yourself (if that is what you wanted), I nevertheless provided you with the "text in full" here - just as you had asked for. You then decided you would take issue with a throwaway remark of mine that the text wasn't quite what Velikovsky had written - which it isn't but of which there is no material difference to what Velikovsky had said.

Those are the facts. So just quit trying to re-write events here.

SC

 

 

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

So just quit trying to re-write events here.

 

 

 

Flipping heck, or should that be flipping Earth, this from the guy with his history, and common sense defying "Recovery vaults" and other assorted nonsense.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Wepwawet: I asked you what the primary source was. . .

SC: No, you did not ask that in your original request. Here's what you asked:

Wepwawet: "Please provide the text in full so that we can all read it and see the context." - from here.

SC: Even although you already had my source (Velikovsky) which you could have used to find the primary source yourself (if that is what you wanted), I nevertheless provided you with the "text in full" here - just as you had asked for. You then decided you would take issue with a throwaway remark of mine that the text wasn't quite what Velikovsky had written - which it isn't but of which there is no material difference to what Velikovsky had said.

Those are the facts. So just quit trying to re-write events here.

 

This is the Velikovsky source (107-8).

He cites Breasted (108, fn. 11).

He states also (108):

Quote

The texts found in the pyramids say that the luminary “ceased to live in the Occident, and shines, a new one, in the orient.” 

The citation is Louis Speleers (fn. 12).  I managed to find one Speleers "Textes des Pyramides" online: but from 1923, not the 1921 edition.  And - for reasons that soon become only too obvious - it would be very difficult to locate the source of the reevant reference  ...

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

... this from the guy with his history, and common sense defying "Recovery vaults" ...

It is what the Surid Legend tells us happened. I merely suggest there may be more truth to the legend than is presently believed. That you have a problem with that is, well, your problem.

For those who missed it: Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

 You, the thread starter, doing research before making any statements, so that you can then have a ready answer to questions is now it should work, but not of course with you and the rest of the fringe, who thrive on obfuscation and evasion.

However, that IS the heart of fringe research. I mean if you use V as a source then whatever he says has to be right and doesn't need to be checked on by the researcher - since everyone know that you don't have check what a noted nut from the past says! Basic research is to check all data from non-scientific sources and it recommended for all sources - people make mistakes, printers make mistakes, etc

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

It is what the Surid Legend tells us happened. I merely suggest there may be more truth to the legend than is presently believed. That you have a problem with that is, well, your problem.

For those who missed it: Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

The only thing I have an issue with, not a problem in the sense you use the word, is fringe authors deliberately and cynically distorting the history of Ancient Egypt.

So, I mentioned "recovery vaults" not the "Hall of the Ancestors", though that will of course be covered by "Other assorted nonsense". But let's look at you "merely suggesting". Are you "merely suggesting" in your book "The Giza Prophecy", written with Gary Osborn?

Just reading the blurb on the back cover clearly shows that this book at least is no mere "suggestion". Let's see what it says.

"Scott Creighton and Gary Osborn demonstrate how the designers of Giza intentionally arranged these massive structures to create an astronomical time line recording catastrophic events in the past as well as warning later generations of the precise times of future catastrophies."

I bolded two words to emphasize that this is no "mere suggestion", it is practically a statement of belief, and as your "Hall of Ancestors" follows on in this universe you have created, I think it not unfair to say that your belief continues, and is not a "mere suggestion", and I now give way to the defence M'lud.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we have ancient Egyptian priests insisting to Herodotus that the sun once rose in the west and set in the east and that they knew this to have occurred on two occasions.

We have an ancient Egyptian inscription which tells us the sun god Harakhte rose in the west.

There are other citations from elsewhere in ancient Egypt of the same occurrence.

Around the ancient world there are many similar accounts of astronomical observations that can only (reasonably) be explained by a change in the Earth’s orbital dynamics.

And so it goes on. These are but a few messages passed down to us by our ancestors. There are many, many more indications, from all over the ancient world, that tell us, in remote antiquity, our Earth dynamics were configured differently to what they are today.

As I said in a previous post – when so many voices from all over the ancient world speak of a similar earth changing event, I tend to listen and not simply dismiss them as primitive and ignorant, as many modern scholars tend to do. “Oh, they must surely be wrong because what they’re saying is impossible.” (We’ll get to that). Alternatively, the cynics will insist (almost always without any proof) that the ancient observers of these highly unusual celestial events were all hallucinating, or speaking/writing metaphorically or just plain mistaken.

Well, as I’m sure most here know – I do not subscribe to that opinion. In my view, there’s a reason why so many ancient sources tell us the sun once rose in the west (twice); there’s a reason why the sun stood still in the sky for a whole day; there’s a reason why Plato tells us that the heavens reverse their direction after long intervals; there’s a reason why Senmut’s astronomical ceiling (more on this below) depicts an inverted sky; there’s a reason why we find evidence all over the world that can only rationally be explained with a different configuration/orientation of the globe. And on and on it goes. And the reason we have all of these ancient accounts, citations and an abundance of physical evidence is quite simply because, it seems to me, Earth inversions and sunrise swaps can happen and did happen. And I think also (as the OP video demonstrates) the four shafts of the great pyramid can be interpreted as ‘showing’ us this inversion event along with providing the knowledge of when each inversion event occurs. Many ancient sources tell us these inversion events are cyclical.

As stated, the evidence indicating that the Earth’s present orbital dynamics were once different is wide and extensive and comes from all parts of the world. Senmut’s astronomical ceiling is just one such piece of evidence and, given the context of the ancient Egyptian sun-reversal references in this topic, I think one that's worthy of consideration here.

First to notice the peculiar nature of this ceiling was Alexander Pogo who wrote:

Quote

 

“A characteristic feature of the Senmut ceiling is the astronomically objectionable orientation of the southern panel; it has to be inspected, like the rest of the ceiling, by a person facing north, so that Orion appears east of Sirius . . .

With the reversed orientation of the southern panel, Orion, the most conspicuous constellation of the southern sky, appeared to be moving eastward - in the wrong direction.” – Alexander Pogo, The Astronomical Ceiling-Decoration in the Tomb of Senmut (XVIIIth Dynasty), Isis 14, no. 2 (1930), p.306, 315-316.

 

Here’s the ceiling:

Senemut-Ceiling.jpg.6c637e2ad17da3796953744a36f11269.jpg

Figure 1. The Senemut Astronomical Ceiling. Looking at this image on-screen, Sah/Orion (southern panel, centre) appears to be in the right location i.e. west of Isis/Sirius.

However, when we look up at the ceiling from the chamber floor, (with the figures ‘upright’), it all changes.

Orion-East-of-Sirius.thumb.jpg.e686f053cf159cf8c365a98c84ce64db.jpg

Figure 2. Perspective when looking up at the ceiling from below.

Notice how, in figure 2, the Sah/Orion/Osiris figure is actually to the eastern side of the chamber and the Sirius/Isis figure is to the western side. Sah/Orion should, of course, be to the west of Sirius. They’re reversed.

Notice also in figure 3, below (left), how the Sirius/Isis figure is taller (higher) than Sah/Orion/Osiris.

Giza-Senemut-Comparison.jpg.375fc9971aa700f377df154f3313e004.jpg

Figure 3. Note: for easy comparison with the sky image to right, the Senemut ceiling image (left) has been reversed in order to simulate the view of the ceiling when looking up at it from below as in fig. 2.

However, when we observe Sirius and Orion from Giza today (fig 3, right), Sirius is actually lower in the sky with Orion higher.  They’re reversed from what we observe in the Senemut ceiling.

In figure 4 (below), notice how the planets on the Senemut astronomical ceiling are positioned just above the red central line, as are Orion and Sirius. This shows the planets aligned along a line known as the line or plane of the ecliptic – a theoretical line that the sun, moon and planets all appear to move along.

Orion-Sirius-Below-Ecliptic.jpg.190a0e45c77d8a5aff2dc75f1b9c1353.jpg

Figure 4. Orion, Sirius and the Planets move along the ecliptic line.

However, when we look at Orion and Sirius from Giza today, (fig. 4, lower image), we find that these stars are below the ecliptic line, not above it as shown on the Senemut ceiling. Again – they’re reversed.

Now, here’s the thing.  ALL of the above reversals/inversions are completely resolved when we consider the sky at Giza from an inverted Earth perspective, as in fig. 5 below):

Giza-Inverted-Heavens.jpg.37eb249582dc9cb3f4d8d60d17474d28.jpg

Figure 5. The Northern Sky of the Southern Hemisphere (today). (Note: For ease of comparison, the Senemut Ceiling here has been inverted to present it as it would be seen by someone sitting on the floor looking upwards at it).

Notice how:

  1. On the Senemut Ceiling, Orion is to the west as is Orion in the night sky. They match.
  2. On the Senemut Ceiling Isis/Sirius is higher (taller) than Sah/Orion which is also what we now see in the northern night sky of the southern hemisphere. They match.
  3. Notice how on the Senemut Ceiling, Orion and Sirius are shown above the ecliptic line, just as they now are in the northern night sky of the southern hemisphere. They match.

There are other features of the Senemut Astronomical Ceiling that are suggestive of a once inverted Earth, but I’ll leave those for another time.

Taking this evidence from Senemut together with all of the ancient Egyptian references to a sun-horizon reversal / Earth inversion, along with the Surid ‘legend’ as to why the pyramids were built, I personally do not think that we should be so quick to dismiss what these ancient sources have to say.  I think only the arrogant and ignorant would do that.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt (p. 11) has:

But this is from the 19th Dynasty, not the Pyramid Texts: so perhaps this is what follows on from the Middle Kingdom adoption you mention.

Thanks!  I'd gotten as far as it being Breasted, and found the other quote that said it was late MK or NK - and then, as with other things, I lost the quote.  Bah!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

We have an ancient Egyptian inscription which tells us the sun god Harakhte rose in the west.

 

 

 

Perhaps you should address my posts to windowpane on this matter where I offer an explanation for the phrase that complies with what we know of their beliefs, and is a rational explanation, even if I am wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

It is what the Surid Legend tells us happened. I merely suggest there may be more truth to the legend than is presently believed. That you have a problem with that is, well, your problem.

For those who missed it: Hall of the Ancestors.

 

For those who missed it:  Surid Missing his Mummies

Edited by Windowpane
edit link
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

Flinders Petrie wrote of the plate in The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (1883):

That sheet iron was employed, we know, from the fragment found by Howard Vyse in the masonry of the south air channel, and though some doubt has been thrown on the piece, merely from its rarity, yet the vouchers for it are very precise, and it has a cast of a nummulite on the rust of it, proving it to have been buried for ages beside a block of nummulitic limestone, and therefore to be certainly ancient. No reasonable doubt can therefore exist about its being really a genuine piece used by the pyramid masons, and probably such pieces were required to prevent crowbars biting into the stones, and to ease the actions of the rollers. (p. 212-13)”

Sorry to burst your bubble boys. 

http://www.catchpenny.org/iron.html

What a silly little bird. You are still going on about this. Burst what "bubble" exactly- this kooky idea of yours that the pyramids date to 1200BC because of the G1 iron plate and iron you believe is only made in the Iron Age...? 

 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

For those who missed it:  Surid Missing his Mummies.

Link not working

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

 

Perhaps you should address my posts to windowpane on this matter where I offer an explanation for the phrase that complies with what we know of their beliefs, and is a rational explanation, even if I am wrong.

Interesting what is the time frame of that quote?  Is it 1320 BC and 1290 BCE? Oddly the Babylonian don't seemed to have noticed that firstly the earth flipped then flipped back, neither did the Shang Dynasty both of which were avid sky watchers.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.