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

> 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

None of this makes any sense to me whatsoever.

> 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”.

1. Neptune was not visible; no one knew of its existence before the mid-19th century AD.

2. Unless and until you have conclusively shown, using independent and verifiable evidence, that the AE were aware of the existence of the planet Neptune, you cannot use a supposed AE knowledge of its position at any one time to support your arguments. So far, you have not produced any such independent and verifiable evidence: therefore, your arguments are invalid.

> >>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.

No, you haven't.

> 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.

Your answer does not address my point.

There is far more independent and verifiable evidence to support the theory that different civilizations and cultures represented their deities in different ways than there is to support the theory of supposed contact with alien space invaders.

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

Many AE scholars find it so.
>
> >>It’s a palimpsest ...<<
> Also not convincing.

Again, many AE scholars - who might be supposed to know a good deal more about than the question than you do - find it so.

> >>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.

If you have - independent and verifiable - evidence that there were pre-existing reasons for the selection of the site of Memphis, then please produce it.

> >>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: <<

> 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 size of the cubit at Giza varied:

Khufu's Pyramid: 20.58 to 20.765 inches
Khafre’s pyramid: 20.573 to 20.82 inches
Menkaure’s pyramid: 20.162 to 20.768 inches

> These variations refer to
> different astronomic information which can only be
> understood when the uncover the greater plan.

There is no evidence of this.

> >>There were variations in the length of the
> cubit even within one structure, in this case, the
> Great Pyramid: <<
> 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.

I'm saying that the builders of any subsequent pyramid or pyramids had no choice but to take Khufu's pyramid into account. That is NOT the same thing as arguing that the siting of the three pyramids was pre-planned, which I suspect is what you're trying to say.

> >>What – this? 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
>
>
> 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)

See my previous statement concerning the planet Neptune.

> >>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.

According to Steiglitz, the Pheidonian foot and the Philetaerean foot were the same length. So, contrary to what you say, this particular point is still up for discussion. It turns on what seem to be two differing interpretations of what Heron of Alexandria actually said.

> >>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.

Well, I don't expect any such thing ...

> >>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

It's never yet been shown that they "encoded" anything ...

> 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.

The existence of aliens forms a cornerstone of your theory. As the existence of aliens has not yet been satisfactorily proved, you cannot take it as a given point, and cannot therefore withdraw from discussions about it.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me