Ogygos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The existence of these alignments is proof in
> itself that they knew these things.

No, that's a circular argument. The statement presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place.

"The existence of these alignments": well, first of all, you would have to satisfactorily establish that these alignments (the Orion-Leo-Sphinx ones, presumably) existed at all. So far, you've not done that.

First of all, there is no persuasive evidence for the existence of a 12-constellation in prehistory.

[members.optusnet.com.au]

Evidence for the existence of the constellation Leo in AE is the subject, meanwhile, of much doubt and scholarly debate

[www.hallofmaat.com]

[home.maine.rr.com]

> If they

If who?

> had
> advanced knowledge this is how they would encode
> things and this is how they did it.

And you can’t see that this is a circular argument based on a series of unevidenced suppositions?

If these
> alignment happened every once in a while we can
> consider it as a coincidence. But taking all
> things into account like the ancient Gods –
> patriarchical civlizers with strange morphologic
> features,

This statement presumes that representations of ancient deities are lifelike representations of non-human life-forms. But different civilizations and cultures represented their deities in many different ways, for a variety of reasons, none of them connected with alien invaders.

> the Dendera light bulbs,
[jcolavito.tripod.com] (scroll down to DENDERA LIGHT BULB )

It’s a lotus ...

the Abydos
> helicopters etc.

Over the years, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg has given many full explanations of the reasons for this misunderstanding. See, for example, [www.historykb.com] (scroll down to her reply dated 17 Sep 2004 12:50 GMT)

It’s a palimpsest ...

, then the alignment with the
> external planets which is ideal for encoding large
> units of time shows us that the architects of
> these structures were around for centuries – see
> time travel or traveling at speeds close to that
> of light. They could visit the Earth just the
> right time to supervise the construction of the
> pyramids. If someone intend to prove a certain
> alternative theory wrong we must either:
> 1) proof it is incorrect in it’s calculations or
> in the data
> 2) site alternative explanations which fit the
> observational information better.
>
> The fact is though that Egyptologists have not the
> foggiest ideas of why the pyramids were built
> where they were – their distribution in Saqara,
> Giza , Abu Rowash, so they come up with simplistic
> explanations that nobody really believes.

Correction: that you don’t believe, because it doesn’t happen to fit in with your theories.

These necropolis were, generally speaking, not far from Memphis, Egypt’s administrative capital for most of its history. Although they might now be viewed as separate cemeteries; Giza , Saqqarah, Abu Rowash, Dahshur, etc were probably considered as one large city of the dead.

The Giza plateau is a relatively flat, if slightly sloping, area that is not too far from a quarry capable of providing the building materials needed to construct the pyramids.

Abu Rowash is quite an elevated site, very close to where the Nile valley widens out into the Delta. A pyramid clad in gleaming white Tura limestone would have been visible a long way away, so that Djedefre’s pyramid would have completely outdone his father Khufu’s pyramid.


> They
> don’t know why the particular base lengths were
> chosen , and why they are not always integer. Thus
> they conclude that the AEs worked hard for tens of
> years to create the largest structures ever built
> they didn’t think of measuring out an integer
> value for all of them based on a predefined
> standard royal cubit.

In the case of the Great Pyramid, it’s been concluded that the builders intended its sides to measure 440 RC. There are, however, variations in the size of the cubit: [www.ronaldbirdsall.com]

This means that they
> conclude that each pharaoh used his own special
> royal cubit measure.

There were variations in the length of the cubit even within one structure, in this case, the Great Pyramid: [www.ronaldbirdsall.com]

> They also don’t know how the
> distances and angles between the pyramids were
> planned.

This statement supposes that there were any planned distances and angles between any of the pyramids. Even someone who knows nothing of architecture and/or civil engineering can see that the builders of Khafre’s pyramid must have taken the situation and positioning of Khufu’s pyramid into account; and, equally, the builders of Menkaure’s pyramid must have taken the situation and positioning of Khufu’s and Khafre’s pyramids into account. But that’s as far as it goes …

The claim that the only thing they took
> into account was steady ground or proximity to
> resources – Nile etc. But if this was true then
> what about the Bent pyramid?

That, too, was built near a quarry.

Why didn’t they
> choose the right ground conditions there? Mistake?

There are theories to account for the shape of the Bent Pyramid.

> Anyone can believe anything.

Yes … So we see.

> I have a simple theory that explains the
> dimensions and positioning of all ancient Egyptian
> pyramids. This is the proof that can stand up to
> scientific scrutiny like statistical analysis.

I’m not sure that statistical analysis would necessarily be the best method of approaching this question: that’s if it can be admitted that the question exists in the first place.

> >>The metre, too, was first used in 1797
> AD.<<
> I presented proof on this mb that a unit of
> measure with length equal to the meter measure was
> used in ancient Sumeria, Egypt, and Hellas. No one
> disputed it(with facts).

What – this? [www.hallofmaat.com] Nothing very conclusive there, I’m afraid. I haven’t been able to find a mention of a Sumerian nir. It would be better if you could provide references and sources when composing arguments such as this.

The Sumerians had a cubit of 49.5 cms. (Dilke 1987: 25); two such cubits would have been 99 cms, so 1% less than the present metre. The longer the distance, the greater disparity there would be between the two.

I also pointed out that there seems to be some disparity between what Stieglitz says about what Heron of Alexander says about the length of the Philetaerean foot, and what Kidson says Heron of Alexander says about the length of the Philetaerean foot. I would have thought that this question ought to be considered in more detail before any further conclusions are drawn ...

> >>And, AFAIAC, the alphanumeric alphabet
> that you keep citing just looks like a meaningless
> collection of numbers and letters.<<
> The ancient Greek letters had a particular
> arithmetic value thus words had also particular
> numerical – integer values. This is a fact. You
> can consider the word number correlations as
> coincidences but you cannot dispute their ancient
> existence.

It is a fact, yes. But you would have to establish the context in which such an application might have relevance. I don’t think you’ve done this. In past posts of yours, you appear to be applying the concept haphazardly.

> Here too these “coincidences” can be
> studied statistically. Science does not allow us
> to speak of coincidences when we can compute the
> probability of an event to occur or not to occur.

> >>for instance, that no one knew of the
> existence of the planet Neptune until the 19th
> century AD;<<

> You don’t have to dispute every point of this
> argument because we have two possibilities:
> 1) a local culture on Earth built these
> structures. Then if we find that they encoded info
> about Neptune we would have trouble explaining it
> since they couldn’t have known about it’s
> existence. This is where you are coming from. But
> as I stated before:
> 2) a very advanced either a) earthly cultured from
> a destroyed very ancient civilization or b) or
> alien civilization designed these structure. In
> this case we cannot claim that they didn’t know
> about Neptune. Chances are they flew right by it.
> If they came to Earth at 2466 BC when the GP was
> built from a direction center galaxy – Earth then
> they surely passed by Neptune and Uranus.
>
> This all means that the only thing you can do is:
> 1) prove aligns did not visit Earth in the past
> 2) find errors in my theory or site another
> theory alternative or orthodox that explains
> things better without introducing external
> variables – fudging things.

No, Ogygos. I don’t have to prove that aliens didn’t visit Earth. It’s up to you to provide proof that they did, and to provide proof - serious and reliable sources - for the rest of your theories.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me