Hello Robert,

Thank you for your repsonse.

RB: you wrote: Bauval's argument that the master plan was rigid"... Where do I argue this??...

SC: I will come back to this momentarily.

RB: The discussion/debate over the 10,500 BC date has been raging since 1994, and I really do not want to embark again on this tedious boat-ride yet again.

SC: I appreciate this so thanks again for indulging me.

RB: In a nutsheel, I firmly believe that the Giza Pyramids are the work of the 4th Dynasty.

SC: I have no issue with this.

RB: The shafts are thus part of a construction project implemented in the 4th Dynasty.

SC: I have no issue with this.

RB: Thus their astronomical alignments are set for epoch c. 2500 BC.

SC: I disagree. Let me explain. There are a number of 'correlation elements' you cite in your work that locks the date 10,500BC (11,500BC) into the layout of the monuments at Giza. These are:

i) The layout of the three main Pyramids.
ii) The Sphinx facing due east.
iii) The orientation of the Milky Way mirroring the NIle.
iv) The 'First Time' of Orion's Belt at minimum culmination.
v) The horizontal arrangement of the Menkaure Queens on the SW Horizon (an idea you have told me you have dropped).

To this list I would add:

vi) The concavities of Khufu and Menkaure.
vii) The Azimuth of Menkaure.

Even from just your own collection of correlation elements, it seems quite unequivocal that the date 10,500BC (11,500BC) is locked into the design. So here is my question:

Why on Earth should the pyramid shafts of Khufu not ALSO be locked to the remote date of 10,500BC? If this design represents the 'means' through which the King's Ba can ascend to the northern and southern stars of THE FIRST TIME, then the shafts, as they are, will simply not get him there since, unlike the pyramid arrangement, they are not locked to the First Time. In effect then, the King's Ba will become 'lost'. This IS a contradiction, Robert, not of what you say in your book (i.e. that there ARE two dates offered) but with the idea of the Giza design serving as the 'engine' through which the King's Ba can return to the First Time. In short, if all these other elements (including the additional 2 I mention) lock the design to the First Time, then there is every reason to consider that the shafts should ALSO have done so. And if the shafts are to lock to the stars you have identified, then the inclinations of the shafts should have been inclined at the altitudes of these stars in the First Time and not 2,500BC. In short, I see this as a complete abberation to the First Time concept you are otherwise happy to expound. Either the inclination of the shafts are wrong or the wrong stars have been identified.

You can correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of this but In your book, Keeper of Genesis you go into some detail concerning the Shemsu Hor or 'Followers of Horus', a group of enlightened individuals who had a supposed shadowy hand on Ancient Egyptian history. Among other things, you propose that it was perhaps this "unseen academy" who carried sacred knowledge down from the 'First Time' to the time of the 4th Dynasty. You further propose that is was this "invisible college" who laid down the plans for the 'temples', including the plans for the Giza necropolis. How then can you say above, "...The design was made in 2500 BC..." (empahasis mine). This is entirely contradicting your proposal that the plans (design) came from the Folowers of Horus long before dynastic Egypt arose?

Now, in KoG p.210 you quote Plato as saying of Egypt:

"...Egypt has recorded and kept eternally the wisdom of the old times. The walls of its temples are covered with inscriptions and the priests have always under their own eyes that devine heritage... The generations continue to transmit to successive generations these sacred things unchanged."

I think it is safe to assume that if the Giza necropolis represents the ultimate expression of the 'First Time' concept then this design, of all the designs in Ancient Egypt, would most certainly have remained 'unchanged' or - as previously stated - would have remained 'rigid'. We have to conclude then that the shafts were also to remain unchanged from the original design first created in the epoch of the First Time (10,500BC) and handed down through the Shemsu Hor to the 4th Dynasty. And it follows, if this is indeed the case, then the stars indicated by you in your books (and by Trimble/Badawy in the 1960s) are incorrect. We have to go back to the First Time to identify the correct stars and doing this provides consistency with the concept of the First Time.

You further propose that the King South shaft aimed at 45* on the southern meridian acted as a sort of 'zero point' thus allowing the calculation of dates back and forward in time as the belt stars 'elevated' the southern meridian. But why should this have been necessary. It is an awful lot of additional work to undertake when it is clearly obvious that these 'enlightened ones' were quite capable of making such calculations without the need of such an elaborate 'zero point'device! Incidentally, within this context, what do you see the purpose of the other shafts being? Surely only one 'zero point' is needed?

Regards,

Scott Creighton









Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2007 06:35AM by creigs1707.