Quote

JS: The aligment of Orion's belt with the Gizamids has been shown to be in error many times before on this board and has been acknowedged to me personally by Robert Bauval. In short: Menkaure's pyramid did not line up with the 3rd star (Mintaka) when the Giza complex was built, Even if you go back to 10,500 BC, it's still not a perfect alignment.

SC: Yes, there is misalignment from the Belt stars but what I am showing you is that the misalignment we observe with belt stars and Gizamids was intentionally created in order to record the c.10,500BC astronomical alignment date with Menkaure/Mintaka. If we place the belt stars perfectly (or as near perfectly as naked-eyed observation will allow) on the ground at Giza we find that G3 is centered on the 'Taylor Point'. From such an asterism we can easily and simply determine the dimensions (length and breadth) of ALL 3 MAIN pyramids. However, if we left G3 centered on the 'Taylor Point' the Menkaure/Mintaka astronomical alignment would point to the year c.12,000BC and the 3 Queens of Menkaure would not be as well placed horizontally on the SW horizon, nor would Al Nilam set before the other two stars. We find this occurs in c.10,500BC which concords also with the 212* azimuth of Menkaure's centre with Mintaka being at 212* azimuth c.10,500BC. The misalignment HAD to be made in order to record a specific date through a specific astronomical alignment - it is that simple.

Quote

JS: Want to know something else? Mintaka is not significantly less bright than the other two stars and so the idea that Menkaure's pyramid is smaller becuase Mintaka is less bright by a similar proportion is simply wrong.

SC: Speak to Robert Bauval about this. I don't subscribe to this idea at all. As far as I am concerned, the dimensions of all THREE pyramids were determined NOT by the magnitude of the 3 belt stars but through the simple geometry of the belt star asterism, in this fashion:

[www.scottcreighton.co.uk]

Quote

JS: The alignment of the three corners that you try to show on your web site is off on Menkaure's pyramid, If you used an accurate and to-scale plan (not some scaled-down image you can grab off a web-site), it would be easy to see how much you are in error there: the corners of the three pyramids are not on the same line and never were. If you draw a line between the corners of G1 and G2, then it cuts the corner of G3. If you draw a line between G1 and G3 then it misses the corner of G2 by a good measure. They cannot be on the same line and no amount of fudging the numbers will change that.

SC: The 3 corners line up when G3 is centered on the 'Taylor POint'.

Quote

QUoting Aldred's account of Late Kingdom legends and then trying to extrapolate those back nearly 4,000 years as if they were real events is too ridiculous for anyone to take seriously.

SC: Egyptologists, historians and other scholars extrapolate things all the time. If they can do it, so can I. There are many in our civilisation who consider Noah to have been a real historical figure. By your line of reasoning, in 4,000 years time people will consider that YOU were only a myth.

Quote

SC: >I disagree with Bauval’s dating method (but that is not to say that his method is wrong). I believe the dating of the ‘star clock’ is achieved much easier through the astronomical alignment of just one of the three main pyramids – Menkaure (with Mintaka at 212* azimuth) which is c.10,500BC. These two methods represent a quite fundamental difference to our respective theories.

JS: Well, then your case is even weaker than Robert's because you are only taking one alignment instead of two or three, which makes any such con-cordance more likely to be pure coincidence than not. Of course, you can't consider all 3 stars because they don't all align in 10.500 BC, a date you have arbitrarily chosen purely becase it fits your other pre-conceived "Cosmic Clock" idea.

SC: Sorry, Joe but you really have it all back-to-front here - my method of dating the Giza design is BY FAR a simpler and more reliable dating method than RB's - measure the azimuth of ONE star, that is all! The date c.10,500BC is not arbitraily chosen. I have shown you how unique Menkaure is at Giza - it has no equal; it STANDS OUT. I propose that this is because we are to consider Menakure as the 'chosen star' i.e. the star the ancient's used to create an astronomical alignment with a celestial equivalent, Mintaka. Furthermore, my method shows us the 'precessional pendulum swing' of the belt stars - Robert's does not.

Quote

JS: Finally, until you and the other Geomancers can show WHO created such a plan, WHY they did it and HOW they passed it down the AES (the "Gold Model" hypothesis is just day-dreaming) and prove the AEs actually knew about and used said plan, I'm going to refrain from taking any of this seriously and wasting any more time on it.

SC: I am not a 'Geomancer'. My work is, by and large, grounded in astronomical observations. It may be of little or no interest to you to know that it takes approximately 72 years for the stars to shift 1* in the night sky. But this precessional motion is what I propose is being depicted to us at Giza (vis-a-vis the so-called 'Queens Pyramids which mark the maximum and minimum culmination points of the belt stars).

You ask "WHY". I can, once more, but speculate. Science is now finding that around the time the belt stars were aligned horizontally on the SW horizon and Mintaka was aligned with Menkaure at 212* azimuth (i.e. c.10,500BC) a major cataclysmic event occurred on the Earth. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But then I ask myself - why does the design (through the so-called 'Queens Pyramids' of Khufu) also show us the belt stars at minimum culmination i.e. c.2,500AD? I'll leave you now to draw you own conclusion.

SC



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2007 03:14PM by creigs1707.