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

Giza Pyramid ground plan finally solved

Recommended Posts

In this graph I depict the distance error of various Giza pyramid correlations. We find Bauval's belt stars of Orion, as also the three pyramid mountain triads I go over in my two books. Then we have the three planet alignment. The mountain and star alignment errors are constant from day to day. The planets though change positions because they travel with different speeds around the Sun. In the graph I depict the error on the day of birth and the previous day and the next day.

It is interesting to see when the error goes to zero on that day. It turns out there is an alignment with a celestial body at upper culmination.

This leads us to an accurate solution for the Giza pyramid ground plan.

Apart from the pyramid distance ratio, the other factor that contributes to an accurate mapping – celestial depiction, is the angle formed at the central celestial body or equivalently at the Khafre pyramid. The Orion to Giza angle error is a whopping 4.231 degrees. This translates to a linear length error of 34.7 meters 114 feet.

Clive Ross’s Giza to Mars planetary orbital period – angular correlation leads to a linear error length of roughly an Egyptian royal cubit. This error is quite small.

But Clive Ross’s theory was not a complete one. It did not account for the relative distance of the outer Giza pyramids in relation to the central Khafre pyramid.

This is where my theory offers a perfect mathematical match. The air shafts encode the time of this perfect match. The error based on my measurements is only 0.005 meters or a fifth of an inch. The accuracy here is 7,502 times larger than Bauval's Orion Correlation theory when it comes to the relative linear distance!

Tools used:

Google Earth Pro 7.3.6.9345

Stellarium 23.2 astronomy software using ephemeris settings DE440, DE441, DE430, DE431

Where, Precisely, are the Three Pyramids of Giza? - By Glen Dash, Glen Dash Foundation for Archaeological Research

Javascript Great Circle Calculator By Ed Williams:

Settings set to: Earth model spherical , distance units: km

Assigned planetary angular altitude to latitude and azimuth to longitude after shifting to a value less than 180 degrees.

The altitude of the planets was measured with no atmosphere(zero refraction).

Edited by Spiros
• 2
• 1
• 1

• Replies 102
• Created

• 23

• 17

• 14

• 11

Posted Images

• 1
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lightly said:

The Teotihuacan pyramids do not represent Orion, the angles and distances don't match. I have proposed another planetary star system to explain the plan. The Xi'am pyramids in China also do not match. I have found that the placement of the largest pyramid relates to my Greek mountain correlation. The latitude of this pyramid in China is in the middle between Giza and the Greek mountains, mountains that were used to plan the Giza pyramids.

Edited by Spiros
• 1

Edited by Spiros
• 1
Share on other sites

There's no reason to think there is any alignment with any stars (other than the North Star and/or the Sun) at Giza.

The mundane alignment shown below is the only one that is evidenced by the positions of the three.

• 7
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Harte said:

There's no reason to think there is any alignment with any stars (other than the North Star and/or the Sun) at Giza.

The mundane alignment shown below is the only one that is evidenced by the positions of the three.

Bauval's Orion Correlation theory proposed an alignment of the shafts with the belt stars of Orion, with Sirius, Kochab, and Thuban.

I agree with you that the shafts make sense to point to the pole star and the Sun, but there is no denying that the accurate alignment of the Southern King's chamber shaft with Alnilam during the construction of the pyramids - IV dynasty cannot be a coincidence.

The above alignment is not an accurate one, it misses the South-East corner of Khafre's pyramid. Also the direction, azimuth formed does not seem to mean anything. It does not represent the direction of the Sun. It does not point to Heliopolis like the G1 G2 pyramid apexes do. I believe it  doesn't mean anything.

• 2
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Spiros said:

Bauval's Orion Correlation theory proposed an alignment of the shafts with the belt stars of Orion, with Sirius, Kochab, and Thuban.

I agree with you that the shafts make sense to point to the pole star and the Sun, but there is no denying that the accurate alignment of the Southern King's chamber shaft with Alnilam during the construction of the pyramids - IV dynasty cannot be a coincidence.

The above alignment is not an accurate one, it misses the South-East corner of Khafre's pyramid. Also the direction, azimuth formed does not seem to mean anything. It does not represent the direction of the Sun. It does not point to Heliopolis like the G1 G2 pyramid apexes do. I believe it  doesn't mean anything.

It means they were built in a line. Whatever else you think is beside the point.
You state that Lehner's line misses a corner. I would note that at least he didn't have to INVERT his map to match the line he wanted.
Regarding the shafts, they are just conduits for the cosmic waters of the abyss to flow into the burial chamber (because the chamber is above the entrance.) It wouldn't be surprising, then, that they may have pointed the shafts at particular areas of the sky. The cosmic abyss was behind the stars. Could be they had some idea about which way it flowed or whatever.
They began constructing the same kind of shafts in Khafre's pyramid but didn't complete them. They constructed a separate entrance above the burial chamber instead.

Harte

Edited by Harte
• 3
Share on other sites

If the pyramids (any pyramids) were supposed to represent the 3 main stars of Orion's belt, wouldn't they all be about the same size?   IMO that alone disproves the OCT

• 3
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Essan said:

If the pyramids (any pyramids) were supposed to represent the 3 main stars of Orion's belt, wouldn't they all be about the same size?   IMO that alone disproves the OCT

The size, if you like height of the Giza pyramids relate to the apparent magnitude of a celestial body. The more bright it is the larger the pyramid. This does in fact disprove OCT as the major encoding. This is because the Menkaure pyramid is too small to relate to the brightness of Mintaka. But this is not the case with my theory. The size of Menkaure's pyramid agrees with the relative brightness of the planet I propose aligns with the other two planets.

Edited by Spiros
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2023 at 5:50 PM, Spiros said:

Bauval's belt stars of Orion,

Spiros, excuse my ignorance, but I think I remember I read somewhere that they found a socalled 4th pyramid next to those 3 that are supposed to represent Orion's belt.

That pyramid proved to be nothing but a mastaba or a simple temple erected for some wife of a pharao.

But does that temple/mastaba not interfere with Bauval's theory about 'Orion's Belt'?

• 4
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abramelin said:

Spiros, excuse my ignorance, but I think I remember I read somewhere that they found a socalled 4th pyramid next to those 3 that are supposed to represent Orion's belt.

That pyramid proved to be nothing but a mastaba or a simple temple erected for some wife of a pharao.

But does that temple/mastaba not interfere with Bauval's theory about 'Orion's Belt'?

I believe it was a satellite pyramid.

Regardless,  Bauval’s theory, although I found it fascinating for many years, doesn’t seem to be credible anymore unfortunately.

• 1
• 1
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Essan said:

If the pyramids (any pyramids) were supposed to represent the 3 main stars of Orion's belt, wouldn't they all be about the same size?   IMO that alone disproves the OCT

The theory was that Menkaure’s pyramid was built smaller because the star it was supposed to represent, Mintaka, was fainter than Al Nitak and Al Nilam ie G1 and G2.

• 4
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

The theory was that Menkaure’s pyramid was built smaller because the star it was supposed to represent, Mintaka, was fainter than Al Nitak and Al Nilam ie G1 and G2.

But it's not that much fainter (especially to the naked eye in unpolluted skies).   I often wonder if those suggestion correlations with stars have ever really seen the night sky in its full glory

• 6
• 1
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

I believe it was a satellite pyramid.

Regardless,  Bauval’s theory, although I found it fascinating for many years, doesn’t seem to be credible anymore unfortunately.

Here it is:

It was close to the other structures.

• 5
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Essan said:

If the pyramids (any pyramids) were supposed to represent the 3 main stars of Orion's belt, wouldn't they all be about the same size?   IMO that alone disproves the OCT

Ah, they represent the size of the primary inhabited planet around each star's stock market value in Xkot'tts

• 2
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Harte said:

It means they were built in a line. Whatever else you think is beside the point.
You state that Lehner's line misses a corner. I would note that at least he didn't have to INVERT his map to match the line he wanted.
Regarding the shafts, they are just conduits for the cosmic waters of the abyss to flow into the burial chamber (because the chamber is above the entrance.) It wouldn't be surprising, then, that they may have pointed the shafts at particular areas of the sky. The cosmic abyss was behind the stars. Could be they had some idea about which way it flowed or whatever.
They began constructing the same kind of shafts in Khafre's pyramid but didn't complete them. They constructed a separate entrance above the burial chamber instead.

Harte

Hey Harte do you remember in 1996 when you and I snuck into the World Archaeological Council Joint Operations Bureau's session where they were thinking about moving Menkaure's pyramid so that Bauval's idea wouldn't seem so important?

We had dressed all in black and you and I took in a stone tablet with a copy of The Hanslune-Harte Ultimate Dumb chart or TH2UD index for evaluating ideas about the Ancient Egyptian civilization. Version .045. It was rejected of course but we tried again in Detroit in 1998, the WACJOBs fourth conference I believe.

• 6
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Essan said:

But it's not that much fainter (especially to the naked eye in unpolluted skies).   I often wonder if those suggestion correlations with stars have ever really seen the night sky in its full glory

That was my question -- if you look at the actual Egyptian star charts, they don't seem to correlate size with brightness... or any other metric.  They're just given names but nothing else.

And there's less than one magnitude of difference between all three stars.  That's not a lot.

• 7
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Antigonos said:

The theory was that Menkaure’s pyramid was built smaller because the star it was supposed to represent, Mintaka, was fainter than Al Nitak and Al Nilam ie G1 and G2.

Yes and the satellite pyramids showed how many planets were orbiting them.

• 2
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yes and the satellite pyramids showed how many planets were orbiting them.

I hadn’t heard that one. I do remember Hancock I think mentioning something to that effect  when talking about the pyramid lay out of Teotihuacan in Fingerprints.

• 1
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

I hadn’t heard that one. I do remember Hancock I think mentioning something to that effect  when talking about the pyramid lay out of Teotihuacan in Fingerprints.

Something like this? https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-teotihuacan-solar-system-revisited

The Teotihuacan "Solar System" Revisited

3/7/2012

In the 1970s Hugh Harleston Jr. mapped Teotihuacan and declared that after identifying a standard unit of measurement equal to 1.059 m, he had found that selected monuments at Teotihuacan formed a precise scale model of the universe, including Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
• 2
• 1
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Here it is:

It was close to the other structures.

Khentkaus is something else. This "4th pyramid" business refers to an 18th century drawing made by Danish naval captain Frederik Ludvig Norden:

• 3
• 1
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Khentkaus is something else. This "4th pyramid" business refers to an 18th century drawing made by Danish naval captain Frederik Ludvig Norden:

Yeah I think this is where the silly conspiracy theories about a missing fourth large gizamid began. My favorite is “it was a black pyramid which got carried away by the Freemasons”.

• 2
• 4
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Something like this? https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-teotihuacan-solar-system-revisited

The Teotihuacan "Solar System" Revisited

3/7/2012

In the 1970s Hugh Harleston Jr. mapped Teotihuacan and declared that after identifying a standard unit of measurement equal to 1.059 m, he had found that selected monuments at Teotihuacan formed a precise scale model of the universe, including Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

Yep, that’s it.

Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Something like this? https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-teotihuacan-solar-system-revisited

The Teotihuacan "Solar System" Revisited

3/7/2012

In the 1970s Hugh Harleston Jr. mapped Teotihuacan and declared that after identifying a standard unit of measurement equal to 1.059 m, he had found that selected monuments at Teotihuacan formed a precise scale model of the universe, including Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

The "Tlaloc" as "Scrooge McDuck" bit in there was hilarious.

• 1
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

The "Tlaloc" as "Scrooge McDuck" bit in there was hilarious.

Looks exactly like him, ah so Disney was spreading the truth about aliens as god in the 1940s!

Edited by Hanslune
• 2

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