Quote

If the changes in orientation of pyramids reflects precessional drift then this implies that the builders worked with a particular set of star targets in the north. But these stars cannot be identified because of the serious question of carbon dating that now emerges. Until this problem is resolved we are left with speculation.

When I try to explain to people my hypothesis that the pyramids of the 4th dynasty were oriented to the pole star of that epoch - Thuban (when it was most closer to the Pole), they tell me: "This cannot be true, because it’s known that for example the Khufu pyramid was laid out at 2570 BC or 2550 BC! "
When I ask to give at least some evidence that the age of the Khufu pyramids (or any of the 4th dynasty pyramids) is exactly that, they usually keep silence or, at best, mentioned Ramsey's "Radiocarbon-Based Chronology".
There are no other "strong" arguments because they simply do not exist.
Currently accepted dates for Khufu’s reign are nothing more than consensus not justified by anything more convincing than shaky assumptions of chronologists (you will understand what I’m talking about if you carefully read chapter 6 of my article, the link to which is in the first post of this topic).
At the same time, some of the chronologists themselves assume that the age of the Old Kingdom is underestimated in current chronolgy (for example, Seidlmayer, an authority specialist in this field, who wrote a chapter on the First Intermediate Period for Hornung & Krauss’s chronology, suggests that Manetho’s data on the duration of the FIP are correct and thus the Old Kingdom is 250 years older. Thus, it turns out that Bristed’s chronology (1906-07) at some points is more accurate than the chronologies of Beckerath, Shaw, etc.).

It is clear that under such conditions, such a discipline as radiocarbon dating, which operates on actual data rather than assumptions, could help. It would seem that radiocarbonists should build an independent chronological model, and historians should accept it, but in fact the opposite happened: the radiocarbonists accepted all the assumptions of the chronologists as relevant and created a confirmatory model (Ramsay), while the large-scale radiocarbon study results of which were not in line with the expectations of historians were criticized (Bonani, Haas, Lehner).

As you know, when reconstructing a chronology, proven astronomical synchronisms have the greatest strength, because the motion of celestial objects is very constant and can be accurately calculated for a very long periods.

The global astronomical synchronism that I discovered allows to explain the orientation of a large set of pyramids of the Old Kingdom and is strong in itself (unless not to consider it a mere coincidence; it is absolutely unbelievable that the data on the azimuths of all the pyramids simultaneously coincide on the graph with the azimuths of the stars of the Big Dipper and Thuban), and in the same time confirmed by radiocarbon dates for Old Kingdom, which despite the recent efforts of radiocarbonists continue to gravitate toward a greater age.

Further reading: this and especially this

Quote

Gantenbrink's 'ideal' scheme (KC shafts exit 154 above base) whether modified or not, remains persuasive because it reflects the ratio 99/70 used to locate the KC

What is this ratio? What is its uniqueness to be imprinted in a pyramid? Why not, 98/70 or 99/60?

Quote

For KC south Gantenbrink gives 45 degrees which corresponds to a date about 2570 BC. If the builders lived 200 years earlier the belt would not have aligned with the shaft.

If the builders lived 200 years earlier the belt would not have aligned with the shaft with the angle of 45 degrees.
But 45 degrees is a theoretical angle. In reality this angle is less steper (about 44 deg.) and well correspond to earlier (for two centuries) epoch.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2020 06:36PM by keeperzz.