>>Evidence for the existence of the constellation Leo in AE is the subject, meanwhile, of much doubt and scholarly debate<<
Well, if it’s the subject of much doubt and scholarly debate, this means it’s not out of the question.

>>First of all, there is no persuasive evidence for the existence of a 12-constellation in prehistory.<<
I don’t think that we necessarily need this as a prerequisite so as the justify the an ancient correlation between the brightest star of Leo – Regulus and the sphinx. This could have existed independently of other constellations, or it might not have been a constellation at all. What I am saying is that they might have related Regulus to the lion figure for some other reason we are not yet aware of. Regulus is a pretty bright star and it’s position is very close to the ecliptic. Let’s return to word-numbers. They vary alot so it’s not so easy to find coincidences. Thus we have:

SPhIGKs(sphinx) = 773

The distance between the Earth and Regulus is given to be about 77.8 or 78. We can’t be sure on the exact value. We would expect that the wordnumber value of Leo in Greek would not be related to the above value. Incidentally the above value might relate to Horus that can be written:

HORYS = 778

But we don’t know if the above values point to a 778 light year or 77.8 light year value. It seems that Leo come to the rescue. We thus notice that it is two time the distance between Earth and Regulus or the time it takes light to go back and forth:

LEON = 30 + 5 + 70 + 50 = 155 = 2 x 77.5

You noted:
>>you would have to satisfactorily establish that these alignments (the Orion-Leo-Sphinx ones, presumably) existed at all.<<
I presented a correlation between Leo and Giza – Sphinx but at the time of reverse alignment of Earth-Uranus-Neptune and the center of the galaxy. Let’s take a closer look at where Leo and in particular Regulus was at the direct alignment of 2466 BC. Well it turns out that the angular separation between Neptune and Regulus at the exact date of Uranus – Neptune alignment and at Neptune transit is close to 120 degrees or one third a whole circle. It is 120 d 27’ 50”. We also notice that the angular separation between Neptune and Saturn is 60 d 25’ 18”. These angles unavoidably lead us to hexagon geometry an thus to the 2:3 Kafre height to base ratio. In the diagram below I went back three days so that Mercury can also fall on the hexagon.



>>And you can’t see that this is a circular argument based on a series of unevidenced suppositions?<<
I have covered the issue of what can be considered as fact.

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.<<
All civilizations did not necessarily come into constant with alien or if they did with the same aliens. We do have similarities between cultures. I could mention Oannes and Kekropas.

>>It’s a lotus ...<<
Not very convincing.

>>It’s a palimpsest ...<<
Also not convincing.

>>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.<<

I know of no cities seperated my miles of nothingness. Also what about Heliopolis? Why would Abu Rowash be the necropolis of Memphis and not Heliopolis which is more or less equidistant to it.

>>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.<<
Quarry proximity was probably one factor , but how can someone guaranty me that the placing of Memphis itself was not chosen ahead of time so that the general greater pyramid project can incorporate a Giza necropolis close to a sufficient quarry.

>>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.<<
This is also cherry picking because some pyramid would by chance be at a higher ground than the others so it happened to be Djedefre’s. But if proximity to where “the Nile valley widens out into the Delta.” was the issue why wasn’t the “good” pyramid placed where Lepsius 1 pyramid is? Also why was his pyramid’s capstone altitude the same as Kafre pyramid’s capstone altitude? Why would this be important?

>>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]<<
Yes the GP base is exactly 440 royal cubits, but this is not the case with the other two main pyramids at Giza since by this same cubit length they are not integer. The variations all find their meaning when we look at what the chambers they were found in mean. These variations refer to different astronomic information which can only be understood when the uncover the greater plan.

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

>>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 …<<
OK so you admit that it was planned.

>>There are theories to account for the shape of the Bent Pyramid.<<
What theories are you referring to? Clive’s Mars theory, because the orthodox theories state that structural problems were the reason for the bent and change in plans. What caused the structural problems? The fact that they didn’t choose the right position – ground conditions to build it. That’s where the contradiction is. This because they had to place it where it was and not just a bit down the dessert.

>>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 got if from wikipdia and now it uses the names:

1 step = 1 giri(Sumerian) = 1 sepu(Akkadian) = 1.000 m = 3 feet

[en.wikipedia.org]

Also in the same site the Sumerian cubit is given to be 49.7 cms. Thus 3 mm in a construction that might have errors is by no way conclusive. We need to measure large building that were built with great accuracy. I don’t know if we can find these types of structures in Sumeria. Also there is always a possibility that their cubit was not derived from the foot or pace – that it is an independent measure that just happens to fall close. Also note this, that if the Sumerian cubit is 49.7 cms then the a double Sumerian cubit is 994 mm while SYNODOS = 994 (Neptonian synodic cycle relation to Earth year)

>>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 ...<<
This does not change the fact that the Phidonian foot had a length of 0.333 meters. This is what is important because this is the older measure one that was used when the alphabet was planned. The Philetaerean foot might have been a different one.

>>But you would have to establish the context in which such an application might have relevance.<<
I expect that encoding what the sphinx means in its name is relevant to what we are referring to.


>>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.<<
I am primarily interested in what the ancients encoded not who they were. This is what I want to uncover and document as also how this affected Earthly cultures. I will thus not be taking part in endless discussions on the existence of aliens or about the color and angle wings.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2008 03:10PM by Ogygos.