When coming up with the Egyptian or to be more specific the Giza or IV dynasty pyramid complex design one needs to explain things in detail.

1. The Giza pyramid trio triangle needs to be accounted for. We thus need another mathematically similar triangle that matches the G1-G2-G3 one. Bauval proposed stars Alnitak - Alnilam - Mintaka. The bad thing about his theory is that the central Giza G2 angle is more than 4 degrees off the Giza value and that the outer pyramid distances are reversed in regards to the outer star(Alnitka&Mintaka) distances(from Alnilam). This means that his theory is not accurate. So was it executed without knowledge of the accurate star data or was their another blueprint?

In my book in Greek "Thebe Andromedia Hestia" in 2014 I presented the Greek mountain to Giza pyramid mapping. I presented the Greek mountain to Egyptian pyramid alignments more systematically in my book in English this June titled "Amphion's Secret"(on amazon). The obtuse mountain triangle in this is a lot more accurate than Bauval's stars.

Well's due to being Greek and drawing my descent from the exact ancient city that aligns with the pyramids and was instrumental to the design of the Giza pyramid one would think that I am preconceived and that my theory is rooted in ethnocentrism. Some might think that I am trying to steal the history from the Egyptians. I would expect that Zahi or other Egyptian officials would not like my book.

So it is now try to fix thing, that is if it will not make them worse. Giza pyramids to the Egyptians. Announcing the Egyptian mountain solution. But is it solely Egyptian or is it also Hebrew?

My new book on Amazon just published today. In paperback and ebook:

The Giza Pyramids of Sinai(Color ink and 60# white paper).

[www.amazon.com]


Yes another mathematically similar triangle. A mountain triangle. And it's a doozy.

What else is explained in my two books:

2) the distance between the pyramids. A issue of scaling down. Compute the scaling factor.

3) The scaling factor is an integer. Nice.

4) The height of the pyramids is formulated. Another scaling factor. Yes you guessed it, another integer. Not a random number. A product of design. Not chance.

5) The base of the pyramid is formulated. Geographic notions - coincidences are taken into account. Mathematical and physical dimensionless constants are considered(pi is an old idea incidentally).

6) A parallel formulation of the three Giza pyramid slopes.

7) The orientation of the Giza pyramids. A reference to Orion 10,500 BC? Nope. Not accurate and not needed. In my newest book this issue is put to rest. Purely designed based on geographic factors.

8) The internal design of the Khufu pyramid. Different ratios or arithmetical cannons have been proposed by researchers. Are they correct? The analysis of the internal structure in my newest book has reference to the Bible.

9) A lot of gematria / isopsephy relations are presented that reinforce the mathematical - geographic and even astronomic alignments in the book. Hard to explain with statistics. Is language and writing alive. Does it know things? Was it simply encoded or is there more than that?

There are more things that need to be documented/explained correctly like the Sphinx, the causeways, the satellite/cult pyramid. But we need to take things one a time and formulate self-consisted testable scenarios.


IHSOYS = EIMI H ZOH = 888

[the-phaistos-disk.webnode.com]