The importance of the Pryamids.

[John Landon]

So, what did the Ancients know about the stars that we do not ? ......

Sir Charles William Siemens FRSA, a German born British inventor climbed to the top of the Pyramid with his Arab guides.
One of the guides said he could feel a strange sensation every time he climbed up there, so Siemens raised his index finger and felt a distinct prickling sensation.
He also received an electric shock when he tried to drink from a bottle of wine that he had brought with him.
Being a scientist, Siemens than moistened a newspaper and wrapped it around the wine bottle to convert it into a Leyden jar (an early form of a capacitor).
When he held it above his head, it became charged with electricity.
Sparks then were emitted from the bottle.

What kind of naturally occurring phenomena at the top of the Great Pyramid could produce such an effect ?
It would be interesting to perform similar experiments on the top of the Great Pyramid... If you were allowed to go up there.

When I was at the Plateau on one of those "Whistle stop" tours, the guide told me that if anything organic is placed in the kings chamber, it does not rot.
I said, so why did they bother with the mummification process if that was indeed true these pyramids were tombs ?

Also, given the amount of effort it would have taken to build such pyramids, you would think there would be references to them in the Glyph's, but there are not.
Why would Pharaohs be Buried in Pyramids, then in later years in holes in the rockface in a different location ?
Does that not strengthen the lost technology argument for the construction of later Pyramids, ? when all you got by the end of it all were mud brick mastaba's.

[Who2]

Lost moments in Time & space......

One winters' night in a very big country house on the south downs there was a meeting.
Organised by a journalist pal and his mrs, a certain Asprey.

Around this huge oak antique trestle dining table we were to feast..
I remember....
A red Indian Chief from something called The White Feather Lodge.
Bauval, Hancock and the other one.
The head of The Emin.
Someone high up from Stiener, Adrian Gilbert, John Mitchell, The head of Lubavitch
Me, and 5 other interesting people, probably a couple of mason's..and a Rosicrucian ?

My mate sent me off to the wine cellar to chose the wines.
I remember very little of this event soon after the hors d'oeuvres were devoured..
I ended sleeping in front of a huge log fire in/on a massive comfy leather sofa with a red setter for company.

I probably missed quite an evening, the best thing was the red indian...
Oh! And the wine wasn't half bad!
NB:to editor alter sleeping to passing out...

[FarleyFlavors]

The reference to the constellation Leo and Manhattan being but one example of snide mockery substituting for rational debate.

In my book, snide mockery is a perfectly valid response to pseudoscience. Besides, they were making a good point.

Nor do I think the Orion alignment of the pyramids has been absolutely refuted....not yet!

Despite the facts that you have to turn the map of the pyramids upside down, or the sky upside down, and even then the angle of Orion's belt is different to the angle of the pyramids and the relative brightness of the stars in Orion's belt don't remotely match the size of the pyramids?

There's no need to refute the Orion theory. It doesn't make any sense in the first place.

[newcastle]

Despite the facts that you have to turn the map of the pyramids upside down, or the sky upside down, and even then the angle of Orion's belt is different to the angle of the pyramids and the relative brightness of the stars in Orion's belt don't remotely match the size of the pyramids?

This was the one misrepresentation conceded by the BSC as unfair to Hancock and also to Bauval.

They had a perfectly rational rebuttal to this statement originating with astronomer Ed Krupp and several eminent astronomers have come out in support of the correlation which require no inversion of maps - simply a viewing of the pyramids and sky from the point of an observer standing to the north and looking south.

From Hancock's letter of complaint to the BBC :


"Using snippets from my interview I am allowed to state that a grand symbolic gesture was what was intended here by the ancient Egyptians and the impression is created that I simply brush aside the worrying fact that this grand symbol is 'upside down'.

At no point am I allowed to make the point that I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT THE SYMBOL IS UPSIDE DOWN, OR TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE VIEWER THAT IT IS NOT IN FACT UPSIDE DOWN.

Had the programme set out to allow me a fair rebuttal of Krupp's argument it would not have restricted my on-screen comment to just the snippet from our interviews where I state that it is 'nit-picking' (which of course sounds ridiculous when the programme has just presented it as a 'fact' that the pyramid-layout is upside down in relation to the stars) but rather the detailed explanation that both Bauval and I offered that to a viewer looking south (the only way to look at Orion from the northern hemisphere of planet earth) the visual pattern of Orion's Belt in the sky is -- repeat IS -- the same as the pattern of the pyramids on the ground and is NOT 'upside down'.

This is a fact verifiable by observation even today -- and computer simulations show that the correlation would have been much more obvious thousands of years ago when Orion rose and set closer to the southern horizon.

A proper examination of Krupp's position, which it would only have been fair for the programme-makers to include, reveals that what this astronomer wants to do to see a correlation is look down on earth and on the pyramids from a position outside and to the south of the celestial sphere and the constellation of Orion -- a position that no human being could possibly find himself in since the stars of Orion's Belt are millions of light years away!

From that angle of view, which I repeat no human can ever see -- the pattern of the pyramids is indeed 'upside down in relation to the stars'. But from the angle of view of a human being on earth at Giza the only way to produce a recognisable image on the ground of the three stars of the belt is exactly the way it was done with the pyramids at Giza."

http://www.s8int.com/AtlantisReborn.html


You can find more on this particular point at :

http://www.academia.edu/12393459/THE_OR ... O_THE_TEST

[John Landon]

George Taylor: A planet where apes evolved from men? There's got to be an answer.

Dr. Zaius: Don't look for it Taylor. You may not like what you find......
The Forbidden Zone was once a paradise. Your breed made a desert of it, "ages" ago.

[FarleyFlavors]

They had a perfectly rational rebuttal to this statement originating with astronomer Ed Krupp and several eminent astronomers have come out in support of the correlation which require no inversion of maps - simply a viewing of the pyramids and sky from the point of an observer standing to the north and looking south.

So why, in the book which first suggested this theory, was there no mention of the fact that the map of the pyramids therein had been printed upside down to match Orion's belt?

Because these snake oil salesmen thought they could get away with it and when challenged, they invented the "north looking south" rebuttal.

There's a logical discepancy involved too.

"Cardinal directions, which are astronomical in origin and derive their meaning from the sky, are inverted by Bauval, Gilbert, and Hancock to achieve the Orion mapping on Giza. [...] The facts are not in dispute. The question is, 'Does this matter?'

Yes, it does, because Bauval and Hancock rely on that same cardinal directionality and directional links between earth and sky when they embrace the astronomical meaning of the so-called 'air shafts' that extend toward cardinal north and cardinal south from the King's Chamber and the Queen's Chamber. In effect, Bauval and Hancock say a directional match between earth and sky does not matter when you are mapping stars into pyramids but it does matter when you are aligning shafts to stellar targets. This is a contradictory use of evidence. [...] This [...] means Bauval still thinks north means north and south means south at Giza...except when he wants north to mean south. I have argued that this is a logical contradiction, and for me it constitutes a fatal flaw in the Orion mapping argument. It's easy to see it. You just look north."

http://www.antiquityofman.com/Krupp_ref ... d_Roy.html

Nevertheless, the tenor of the programme is, in my view, one of a deliberate "hatchet-job" rather than any serious attempt to refute the ideas proposed (certainly...as far as Bauval's Orion alignment hypothesis is concerned). The reference to the constellation Leo and Manhattan being but one example of snide mockery substituting for rational debate.

The problem is, you can't really have a rational debate with these people. When challenged in the programme about the fact that the angle of the pyramids doesn't match Orion's belt, Hancock simply says "No they're not absolutely correct and I don't care."

What's the rational response to that statement?

[newcastle]

Whatever....I'm bored with the topic now.

You're right in saying you can't have a rational debate with some people.

As an atheist, I've long since accepted that there are some subjects that defy the rational approach although, on the very rare occasions I'm provoked into debate.....for example on the issue of intelligent design....I endeavour to keep away from personal insults of those with whose views I may disagree and try to give them the benefit of the doubt - as being "honestly confused and mistaken".

[Who2]

Thing about the pyramids is 'they ain't nothing until your standing below them.....
Ps: Then they f*ck one's mind 'big-time.....if you stood there then you'll understand or even stand-under!

[Horus]

As for myself, I find reading the linked article does make a good case for debunking the claim of Bauval et al, they cannot have it both ways by switching your North & South to suit the proposed theory. Like many of these claims they make perfect sense untill challenged by an expert, or even someone with enough understanding of the subject, Von Daniken is a classic example of this.

[newcastle]

As for myself, I find reading the linked article does make a good case for debunking the claim of Bauval et al, they cannot have it both ways by switching your North & South to suit the proposed theory. Like many of these claims they make perfect sense untill challenged by an expert, or even someone with enough understanding of the subject, Von Daniken is a classic example of this.

Then, I offer for your delectation, a rebuttal from Scott Creighton (who's he?) which I'm sure you'll enjoy digesting tomorrow evening (wet towel round head recommended) :

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.ph ... 067,318067

[Horus]

One quick look was enough, once the 'Prat in the hats' name was mentioned I stopped reading.

[John Landon]

Just goes to show how much cloak and dagger stuff we have going on in our so called civilisation.
Other civilisations know all about themselves and no great mysteries in life to solve, no questions for the elders to answer.

Religions being brutally enforced causing knowledge to be lost, and the Dark Ages that people just accept instead of asking WHY ?
Academia is simply a bunch of parrots speaking, they repeat what they were told, and those that can recite more of what they were told move higher up the ladder.
no room for any free thinking or change of minds, and those who challenge the accepted theories are ridiculed.

Welcome to the machine.

I can see the good in everything, and as such, without the enforced religions and all we have gone through since the Golden Age has led us to where we are today, without it I doubt we woudl be where we are. We have 3000 years worth of technology to catch up with, but it wont take us that long to catch up.

Arthur C. Clarke. Clarke's three laws.

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
*3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

* used to refer to unexplained archaeological finds and reconstructions of folk mysticism: "Any sufficiently ancient recovered wisdom or artifact is also indistinguishable from magic."

[FarleyFlavors]

One quick look was enough, once the 'Prat in the hats' name was mentioned I stopped reading.

It's worth sticking with. There's some comedy gold in there.

When you get to phrases like "the UPNESS that we can observe in the stars" you'll be rolling around on the floor.

[John Landon]

If we look at what surrounds the internals of the Pyramids, I think it is safe to say that those internals were going to have to hold a lot of pressure, hence all the surrounding masonry to keep it all together from the outside..




We also overlook the fact that the pyramid is 8 sided, each of the four faces goes concave at an angle, again indicating it was designed to withstand a massive amount of internal pressure.

Now if my water theory is correct that water was pumped into the pyramid then maybe that is upheld by the presence of the huge wall that was constructed like a dam surrounding the GP, in other words the base of the wall is thicker than the top with a gradient, even those walls held a lot of water and so had to hold a lot of pressure.
You can see the remnants of the wall here, and the 2 parts to the side of the pyramid.


the shafts were like valves so to speak, which means the water was hot, very hot, and the pressure had to be correct and constant.
They could also be used to add the vital ingredients into the box inside the Kings chamber prior to the water being pumped up there, or indeed after the water was introduced.

Pyra-mid means fire in the middle, so we had a heat source in the box, and a grand gallery, which to me looks more like a resonating chamber.

So, in effect we have a great big pressure cooker, question is, WHY ? Oh, and WHEN ?

[newcastle]

Pyra-mid means fire in the middle............

Mmmmmmmmm

I think you may be on dodgy ground here John

It's one thing to wind up the egyptologists (I'm partial to that myself)....but I'd give the etymologists a wide berth

[Horus]

I see youv'e been watching the same crap on Netflix as I have , whatever you are in real life John, you aint no engineer.

[Frater0082]

They had a perfectly rational rebuttal to this statement originating with astronomer Ed Krupp and several eminent astronomers have come out in support of the correlation which require no inversion of maps - simply a viewing of the pyramids and sky from the point of an observer standing to the north and looking south.

So why, in the book which first suggested this theory, was there no mention of the fact that the map of the pyramids therein had been printed upside down to match Orion's belt?

Because these snake oil salesmen thought they could get away with it and when challenged, they invented the "north looking south" rebuttal.

There's a logical discepancy involved too.

"Cardinal directions, which are astronomical in origin and derive their meaning from the sky, are inverted by Bauval, Gilbert, and Hancock to achieve the Orion mapping on Giza. [...] The facts are not in dispute. The question is, 'Does this matter?'

Yes, it does, because Bauval and Hancock rely on that same cardinal directionality and directional links between earth and sky when they embrace the astronomical meaning of the so-called 'air shafts' that extend toward cardinal north and cardinal south from the King's Chamber and the Queen's Chamber. In effect, Bauval and Hancock say a directional match between earth and sky does not matter when you are mapping stars into pyramids but it does matter when you are aligning shafts to stellar targets. This is a contradictory use of evidence. [...] This [...] means Bauval still thinks north means north and south means south at Giza...except when he wants north to mean south. I have argued that this is a logical contradiction, and for me it constitutes a fatal flaw in the Orion mapping argument. It's easy to see it. You just look north."

http://www.antiquityofman.com/Krupp_ref ... d_Roy.html

Nevertheless, the tenor of the programme is, in my view, one of a deliberate "hatchet-job" rather than any serious attempt to refute the ideas proposed (certainly...as far as Bauval's Orion alignment hypothesis is concerned). The reference to the constellation Leo and Manhattan being but one example of snide mockery substituting for rational debate.

The problem is, you can't really have a rational debate with these people. When challenged in the programme about the fact that the angle of the pyramids doesn't match Orion's belt, Hancock simply says "No they're not absolutely correct and I don't care."


What's the rational response to that statement?

I don't think the Pyramids match the Orion's belt but the Plieades "Seven Sisters"