KK: What do you believe is likelier? That some early group left behind plans which no one touched for millennia, until they were implemented at Giza; or that the AE built their pyramids by themselves?

SC: First of all let me say - this issue we are discussing should not be concerning itself with the plan per-se and is simplay taking our eye off the ball. The real issue here relates to the advanced knowledge that is so obviously being displayed to us in the arrangement of the structures at Giza. Ask yourself the questions - where could such advanced mathematical/astronomical knowledge have come from? How did it get there? What does it all mean?

Now, I happen to accept that the three main Gizamids are symbolic of Orion's Belt as presented by Robert Bauval. Robert Bauval presents substantial contextual evidence from the AE culture to corroborate what he is saying. What Bauval/Gilbert presented to the world in 1994 I do not think can be easily dismissed although many would like to do so. To this date Bauval cannot conclusively prove his theory but neither can it be disproved. What is needed is further evidence to corroborate what Robert Bauval has been saying all these years. The discoveries at Nabta Playa go some way to assisting in this.

The work I present is further evidence of the significance of the Orion Belt stars to the people of Ancient Egypt. They placed the two sets of Queens to demonstrate to us the maximum and mimimum culmination of the belt stars; they show us how these stars move across a very long period of time. Why would they do this? My guess is that it they knew by simply depicting the three stars with only the three main Gizamids would be insufficient to tell a future civilisation the three stars they had in mind. By demonstrating on the ground how the three stars move across approx 13,000 years, we can see exactly the three stars they have depicted - the 3 stars the Designers want us to know about. Without this key information we would be simply guessing and arguing with each other which group of 3 stars the ancient Designers were depicting to us as recent debates with Robert Bauval (Orion's Belt) and Andrew Collins (Cygnus Wings) has demonstrated.

There is no question in my mind that the Gizamids are symbolically depicting the belt stars of Orion. This is what I see at Giza. Sure, the 3 main Gizamids could have been a simple eye-to-ground depiction of the belt stars - a simple plan of the three main structures carved into a rock slab or whatever 12,500 years ago and passed down through time. There is no advanced knowledge in this - just good accuracy with naked eye observation and good crafting ability to create a model that would last thousands of years.

The 2 sets of so-called Queens, however, present us with a totally different scenario. The placing of these structures on the plateau depicting the movement of the belt stars (as depicted by the three main Gizamids) had to have been calculated and projected. This isn't simple eye-to-ground copying. This is advanced astronomical/mathematical knowledge in action. It's there. I have shown how it is there. If you disagree with me that this 'correlation' does exist then there is little we can discuss. If you accept that the correlation does exist then we can go on and debate whether it was intentional or not. If, in the end, we accept my premise then we have to ask ourselves some awkward questions, vis-a-vis:

1) If we are to accept that the AEs themselves did not possess this level of astronomical/mathematical knowledge, then where could such advanced knowledge have come from?

2) How was it passed down to the AEs?

3) What's its true purpose? Why depict the belt stars, why show us how they move, why show us how they set (through the concavities of Khufu and Menkaure)?

Now, in the Greater Orion Correlation Theory (GOCT) and the Giza Precession Wheel Theory (GPWT) I have offered one explanation to these questions. It may not be the correct explanation but an explanation nevertheless. I say the only way such advanced mathematical/astronomical knowledge could have been passed down to the AEs is if some former advanced civilisation had once existed at some time in the remotest past and, for whatever reason, this civilisation is now lost to us. Before they vanished completely, however, the remnant of that civilisation found a way of encoding this advanced knowledge into some kind of plan - perhaps a model of some kind sculpted in granite or, who knows, crafted in gold!

This plan (or codex) was passed down from father to son, generation to generation, perhaps with an oral tradition of some kind, that told the guardians of the plan that they had a sacred duty to build the plan on Earth for in so doing they would ensure the rebirth of the Earth (i.e. after the next cycle of cataclysm that had befallen the creators of the codex). In time the origins of the codex will have dimmed as would the awareness of the advanced mathematics and astronomy inherent within it but it will perhaps have been remmebered that it came from a time when there were gods upon the Earth, the First Time or Zep Tepi. In time the codex would have become sacred, protected by an elite priesthood who would eventually, secure its completion only when the AEs had mastered the art of pyramid building. This occurred during the 4th Dynasty of Ancient Egypt.

Yes, lots of speculation here but echoes also of the ancient architectural codex the AEs themselves say they received from the heavens at Saqqara.

The fact remains - there is clear and unequivocal advanced precessional knowledge being presented to us in the arrangement of the structures at Giza. We have a choice. We can ignore it or we can try to explain it.

Regards,

SC



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2007 05:50AM by creigs1707.