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 -

Orion's Belt: perfect alignment with the Giza Pyramids or Coincidence ?


Unusual Tournament

Recommended Posts

image.thumb.jpeg.1d7478652aa685bf275f7bc74afaf416.jpeg

 

 

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

Isn’t it a case of “well, we aligned the upper left corner of this pyramid. The apex of this one and thr lower left of this one and PERFECT ALIGNMENT!” rather than “all the apexes align”?

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

2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Isn’t it a case of “well, we aligned the upper left corner of this pyramid. The apex of this one and thr lower left of this one and PERFECT ALIGNMENT!” rather than “all the apexes align”?

Wasn't there a couple of threads on this started by Scott? 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. 

Next.

 

 

Quote

It also isn’t completely honest. In 1999, astronomers using planetarium equipment exposed some serious liberties taken by proponents of the idea. In order for the pyramids to take the shape of Orion’s Belt, you have to invert one or the other. So, the pyramids don’t really mirror the celestial alignment in the way that’s often presented. 

https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/are-the-egyptian-pyramids-aligned-with-the-stars/

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In ancient Egyptian mythology, the stars in Orion's Belt represented the resting place of the soul of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the deceased. There is even a theory, proposed since the late 20th century, that the ancient Egyptians positioned the pyramids of Giza to align with the stars in Orion's Belt roughly 4,500 years ago. 
 

https://www.space.com/28072-orions-belt.html

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

34 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

LMAO

Come on...

 

Quote

Critics of the theory say that the theory only works if the pyramids are inverted, which explains the multiple digs found around the three pyramids. Although nothing has been announced yet, the search continues, as rumours of three inverted pyramids underneath the Giza ones surface.

 

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

Just now, Abramelin said:

Screenshot_20240623-083543_Firefox.thumb.jpg.c9c72bd2dd95b0d36bce82b1434d3a14.jpg

The article date means nothing since nothing since has discounted it.
 

The Ancient Egyptians looked up at the sky to the particular Star constellation that had afterlife significance to them and copied it. What’s so hard to understand? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As pointed out in another thread, the pyramids would need to move about the desert in order to properly reflect the positions of the stars.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

As pointed out in another thread, the pyramids would need to move about the desert in order to properly reflect the positions of the stars.

To the best of the ancient Egyptian knowledge, maybe they sit just right

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Unusual Tournament said:

To the best of the ancient Egyptian knowledge, maybe they sit just right

The AEs had no problem recording stars (and planets) in the sky:

image.png.dd5ab3a6e02c7b68f512c6893366c55a.png

 

It is well understood that they used the rising of each star (or group of stars) to count the hours of the night. It stands to reason that, in order to track and count the stars through the night, they must first have observed and recorded them and the order in which they rose above the horizon. Which clearly wasn't beyond them.

SC

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

13 hours ago, Piney said:

Wasn't there a couple of threads on this started by Scott? 

You said his name.

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

Just now, Antigonos said:

You said his name.

I know......🥴

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Piney said:

I know......🥴

sddefault.jpg

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Spiros said:

. . . the error in distance between Giza and what we would expect from the Orion is 42 meters. It is too large. . .

As my GIF shows, it is possible, using the Belt stars of Orion in a simple and systematic fashion, to create the relative base dimensions of the Giza three to a very high degree of accuracy.

After the relative dimensions of the three had been created (using the Belt stars in the manner show in the GIF) and were subsequently being mapped onto the ground at Giza, G2 was slightly offset from its true Belt position (i.e. offset slightly from Al Nilam centre, see below):

image.png.7387f4732306e45ef61d702f38ebc01c.png

                             The Giza Inter-Quarter Lines (G2 Offset from Al Nilam Centre)

When you relocate G2 centre onto its Orion's Belt counterpart centre (Al Nilam), we find this:

image.png.f8c275be4834d841a6da63ad64a1cecc.png

                                      G2 Recentred on its Stellar Counterpart (Al Nilam)

The slight misalignment of the Giza 3 with the Belt stars is not, as Bauval long believed due to G3 misplacement, but rather, G2 misplacement. And I suspect there was a very particular reason why G2 was slightly repositioned on the plateau. (Note: The original entrance to G2 bears witness to the fact that it has been repositioned i.e. offset from the original Belt plan. The diagrams above corroborate this slight offset of G2). The inter-quarter lines (shown above) are an artefact/effect of the design process (as shown in the GIF).

The fact remains, however - the relative base dimensions of the Giza three can be created using the Belt stars in a simple and systematic manner and nothing to do with star magnitudes as Bauval believed. Just simple geometry.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not a fan of these 'alignments' ideas generally.   Not closed off to them, but highly suspicious of paternicity, out of frustration from the impossibility of understanding these ancient sites.  But years ago, in recognition of the reversed positioning of the pyramids, I did consider an idea about the only possible alignment, which would be a star alignment of Orions belt, directly above in the sky on the opposite side of the earth from the pyramids.  If you were to project the stars through the earth, they would correctly align with the pyramids, (as close as they might appear), so I joined the paternicity woo club temporarily, to work out if the pyramids might be aligned on the opposite side of the earth, to act as an alignment pointer generating a point in space where the 3 lines converge.  If you project each star of Orion, through the earth, through its mirrored pyramid, then based on the geometry and the assumption that the stars distances were correct based on the presumptive theory of 'red shift' distance, then that system of 'pointer' only points to a spot up in the sky about 20 miles up.    If it pointed to some star, then perhaps it meant something, and also would be a time stamp of that particular alignement, but 20 miles up based on red shift distances was a dead end... but it was a fun exercise. 

Edited by Open Mind OG
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's time we examine the possibility of how the pyramids align with Orion's necktie.....

🤪

 

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

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Open Mind OG said:

Not a fan of these 'alignments' ideas generally.   Not closed off to them, but highly suspicious of paternicity, out of frustration from the impossibility of understanding these ancient sites.  But years ago, in recognition of the reversed positioning of the pyramids, I did consider an idea about the only possible alignment, which would be a star alignment of Orions belt, directly above in the sky on the opposite side of the earth from the pyramids.  If you were to project the stars through the earth, they would correctly align with the pyramids, (as close as they might appear), so I joined the paternicity woo club temporarily, to work out if the pyramids might be aligned on the opposite side of the earth, to act as an alignment pointer generating a point in space where the 3 lines converge.  If you project each star of Orion, through the earth, through its mirrored pyramid, then based on the geometry and the assumption that the stars distances were correct based on the presumptive theory of 'red shift' distance, then that system of 'pointer' only points to a spot up in the sky about 20 miles up.    If it pointed to some star, then perhaps it meant something, and also would be a time stamp of that particular alignement, but 20 miles up based on red shift distances was a dead end... but it was a fun exercise. 

Speaking of the "reversed positioning of the pyramids".

Here is what I called the 'Great Giza Circle' (image below).  It is a circle that connects the 3 most outer points of the Giza pyramid field.  When we connect these 3 points, lo and behold, we find that the Sphinx ends up sitting right on the perimeter of the circle and that G2 centre is whithin a whisker of the circle's centre.

image.thumb.png.cfa947d358397ee70db20b36bf5ee23b.png

 

To me this circle demonstrates deliberate intent. Almost 2 decades after I first noticed this circle, I realised what it may be presenting to us.

Most folks here will be aware of the so-called 'Giza Diagonal' (or 'Lehner-Goedicke Line') - the thick diagonal line in the image above that passes through the diagonal of G3a, touches the SE corner of G3 and G1, then passes very closely through the diagonal of G1a (not perfect but very close).

What this arrangement actually seems to be demonstrating is how the Belt stars flip 180 degrees. Crucial to this is the Giza Diagonal since this connects G1a and G3a satellite pyramids. In essence it's like marking these two pyramids as being the same (i.e. both these satellite pyramids represent the terrestrial counterpart to the Belt star Al Nitak).

Now imagine the circle as the horizon. What this arrangement seems to be depicting is that G1a (Al Nitak at point B ) is closest to the horizon. However, when we now look at the opposite end of the Giza Diagonal (point D), we find that Al Nitak is not the star closest to the horizon here but that it is G3c (i.e. Mintaka) that is now closest to the horizon. IOW - the Belt stars are being shown to have reversed ( i.e. flipped 180 degrees).

image.thumb.png.734d844cb731e17503a09fe1d0915a64.png 

 

Hence the purpose of the Great Giza Circle and the Giza Diagonal can be explained (as can the inverse nature of the main Gizamids on the plateau with regard to Orion's Belt on the southern horizon of the northern hemisphere i.e. Bauval's 'reverse problem').

SC

 

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

It's always very hard to draw conclusions based on matching patterns.

Given the size of the universe, number of stars etc etc.

It's like the example of the monkey with the typewriter.  Given enough time there's a change that it will reproduce Shakespeare's work.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, iAlrakis said:

It's always very hard to draw conclusions based on matching patterns.

Given the size of the universe, number of stars etc etc.

It's like the example of the monkey with the typewriter.  Given enough time there's a change that it will reproduce Shakespeare's work.

Yes, I suppose anything is possible. However, what I would ask you to consider is the GIF presentation (below).

GSF.gif.f8d6711b46b61daffb84f8e77fbea310.gif

Just what are the chances that the Belt stars can reproduce three bases whose relative proportions match the relative dimensions of the main Gizamid bases to a high degree of accuracy? I have to tell you that the chances against successfully achieving such an outcome are stupidly high. If you do not believe me why not try this little experiment:

1) On a blank sheet of paper, randomly place three shapes (squares or rectangles of whatever size you like).

2) Now throw three small coins to the floor or a table.

3) Now, with the three coins (and using the technique as shown in the above GIF),try and replicate the relative dimensions of your three random shapes from just the centre of your three coins (as they have fallen onto the floor or table).

You will very quickly find, that the task is virtually impossible. You would not have enough lifetimes to succeed. And yet, it is standing right there at Giza. That is all the proof anyone should need that the Gizamid-Belt star connection is absolutely real and was entirely intended by the ancient designers/builders.

IMO.

SC

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

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

What are the chances there's a coincidence? Great question.

Correlation doesn't mean causation and "mass comparison" or "surface comparison" are both shoddy ways to do research. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Yes, I suppose anything is possible. However, what I would ask you to consider is the GIF presentation (below).

GSF.gif.f8d6711b46b61daffb84f8e77fbea310.gif

Just what are the chances that the Belt stars can reproduce three bases whose relative proportions match the relative dimensions of the main Gizamid bases to a high degree of accuracy? I have to tell you that the chances against successfully achieving such an outcome are stupidly high. If you do not believe me why not try this little experiment:

1) On a blank sheet of paper, randomly place three shapes (squares or rectangles of whatever size you like).

2) Now throw three small coins to the floor or a table.

3) Now, with the three coins (and using the technique as shown in the above GIF),try and replicate the relative dimensions of your three random shapes from just the centre of your three coins (as they have fallen onto the floor or table).

You will very quickly find, that the task is virtually impossible. You would not have enough lifetimes to succeed. And yet, it is standing right there at Giza. That is all the proof anyone should need that the Gizamid-Belt star connection is absolutely real and was entirely intended by the ancient designers/builders.

IMO.

SC

Doesn't work, Scott.

You'd have to throw the 3 coins on the table and then look at a map of the sky and decide what constellation they mapped.

However, the pyramid placement wasn't random (as we all know) and did depend partly on the geologic shape of the area.  It's not hard to find things that align to Orion's belt... like these hotels in London:
image.png.d07cb6000ffb8593959214f9e3123eed.png

And I would bet that the architects and owners weren't thinking of Orion.

  • Like 4
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.