The Solar System at Giza: The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy

It absolutely amazes me how people can be so desperate to hold on to their fantasies. The ancient Egyptians didn't know anything about the measurements of the planets' orbits, modern units of measurement (meters, cubits, and feet? Really?), or half the mathematical concepts used to produce these numbers, which aren't even correct, since they're based on averages, approximations, and magical pixie dust. The ancient past is fascinating as it is, without all the unicorns, magic, aliens, or fudged math.

Just curious how you know this for a fact ? Are you suggesting we know everything that The Ancient Builders knew ? That there are no new discoveries to be made ?

Pretty boring world you live in.

To the more educated members (you know who you are) trying to show the OP why his numbers don't work, I hate to say it, but I think you're just wasting your time...

LOL but silly you they do work !

Ahatmose, do you see any problem with this? I believe this pretty much sums up the sort of flawed thinking behind 'theories' like this.

Flawed thinking ? Do you know what you are talking about ? In inches the precise measurements of a rectangle drawn to enclose the three pyramids of Giza are 29228 inches (east and west) and 35723.1 inches north and south

(29228 / 9) x 11 = 35723.1 Looks pretty close to me.

And you still don't see the problem with your theory? You keep abandoning the actual dimensions of the Giza plateau in preference for your fantasy numbers? Now you claim the rectangle formed by the 3 main pyramids is a perfect 9x11 grid?

The site plan you clearly are following is the one Legon reconstructed, which he claims was based on the Petrie survey (we don't actually know that). While Petrie survey has been faulted for not establishing the true base lines of the pyramids (he couldn't since they were buried), I believe the real fault lies with Legon, who based his Giza layout and pyramid spacing on his idealized "modular scheme," as seen here and here. He then uses this modular reconstruction to decide √2 and √3 were factors in it's layout - factors I believe he inherently encoded into his idealized layout. Ultimately his reconstructed plateau map does not appear to match up with satellite photos or the GPMP map, it is an idealized version.

You also fail to address the point Hans has brought up. There are a multitude of tombs and several pyramids that are completely ignored in your theory, and at least two of the planets you claim are mapped there aren't represented at all, their positions having to be inferred.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Yes he had constructed a perfect rectangle and is moving dots around on it and then placing them on perfectly round orbits, I believe he has created three different views so far - of course none of this relate in any way to what is on the plateau. So I guess any rectangle used in AE architecture could be used for the same, lol

Sorry Ahatmose but what you are doing is pure fantasy. Look again at Menkaure's tomb and note the orientation of the side farthest away from the great pyramid - are you saying you can get a straight line and then build a rectangle from that?

You have dismissed all the other monuments on the plateau - why? Saying you are going to get to them isn't sufficient.

Now you are ignoring what is known about AE astronomy can you show any evidence that they knew anything about the solar system? Their religion told them that the world was not round and moving but fixed. How do you resolve this contradiction?

a reply to: Hanslune

Now you are ignoring what is known about AE astronomy can you show any evidence that they knew anything about the solar system? Their religion told them that the world was not round and moving but fixed. How do you resolve this contradiction?

The OP also wants us to believe the ancient Egyptians understood the heliocentric nature of the solar system. The AE believed the sun was a supernatural being that traveled across the sky in a celestial boat, this is evidenced throughout their history in a vast number of depictions and writings. The OP wants us to ignore all that and have us believe the AE built a model with the sun at the center. There's a reason pyramidiots have earned that nickname.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

You know if you can find some way to construct a rectangle anywhere in the world, from any archaeological site they have you can then claim those folks had knowledge of the solar system..........

Very interesting thread Ahatmose i liked in the first pictured post the decimal for the yearly cycle i was just last week learning about the way we count leap years and read on wiki that the yearly cycle is not actually 365.25 days long it is in fact 365.242374 days long there have been different statements on this over different races or religeons but not exact it seems so that could be more accurate than what we know if you want to see heres the link
Leap Year Cycle
I really think you are onto something with this i enjoyed reading this it has made me think allot more about this very mysterious for me now. Thanks

I honestly can see why some believe the giza plan shows some sort of higher design purpose but they're projecting their own whims on it. This thread topic is derivative of John Legon theories, as BM posts above. He is also the guy that pushed the "air shafts" are really star shafts pointing to Orion. That theory is also a bogus claim, as both "air shafts" turn horizontal before exiting the pyramid. He also pushed the theories that giza is a model of Orion. In his plan of giza, you can clearly see where he deviates from actual measures of the site and uses the golden section in spacing the pyramids. Because he did that, then you will naturally find Phi (which is the golden section) in your computations of the site.

Maybe the OP will admit just where he got his measurements for giza he used in his CAD model. My guess is from John Legon's page. Those dimensions are used by him and only him.

Sorry OP, it's a nice flight of fancy, but your theory evaporates when the real giza plan is used and not Legon's.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Yes he had constructed a perfect rectangle and is moving dots around on it and then placing them on perfectly round orbits, I believe he has created three different views so far - of course none of this relate in any way to what is on the plateau. So I guess any rectangle used in AE architecture could be used for the same, lol

Sorry Ahatmose but what you are doing is pure fantasy. Look again at Menkaure's tomb and note the orientation of the side farthest away from the great pyramid - are you saying you can get a straight line and then build a rectangle from that?

You have dismissed all the other monuments on the plateau - why? Saying you are going to get to them isn't sufficient.

Now you are ignoring what is known about AE astronomy can you show any evidence that they knew anything about the solar system? Their religion told them that the world was not round and moving but fixed. How do you resolve this contradiction?

Read this'



.

√3, Phi, Pi our 9 by 11 triangle and The Pyramids at Giza and their story

Hi all this may be a bit of a long post or I may break it into sections I don't know yet. In a previous post I showed how simple it was to layout the inner three planets using a simple 9 by 11 triangle and the height and base of The Great Pyramid but now we are going to expand on this and go to another level of sophistication. What follows was discovered by a gentleman named Nick L. as he and I searched for answers on The Giza Plateau but what follows is his and it is beyond remarkable and sadly it has gone sorely underestimated and under appreciated but I will post it here for you to enjoy. As I said it is amazing.

To begin we will start with the discovery of mine that the ratio between The Great Pyramid and G2 or the one commonly referred to as Khafre's Pyramid is in the exact proportion of the square root of 3 to the value Phi or The Golden Ratio. In mathematics and the arts, two quantities are in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities, i.e. their maximum. The figure below illustrates the geometric relationship.



So this translates to:

a = 1.00000
b = .618033988
a + b = 1.618033988

And Phi is equal to 1.618033989 while Phi squared = 2.618033989 and 1 divided by Phi = 0.618033989 and lastly 1 divided by 0.618033989 = 1.618033989

So according to me The Great Pyramid or 440 cubits is equal to the square root of 3 or 1.7320508075688772935274463415059 while G2 or Khafre's Pyramid is equal to 411.04 cubits and Phi or 1.6180339887498948482045868343656. So let's do some division and see if I am correct in my discovery.

G1 / G2 = ?
440 / 411.04 = 1.0704554301284546516154145581938


But we have decided that G1 / G2 is equal to or is the same as √3 / Phi

√3 / Phi =

1.7320508075688772935274463415059 / 1.6180339887498948482045868343656 = 1.0704662693192697958259095291383

The degree of accuracy is 1.0704554301284546516154145581938 / 1.0704662693192697958259095291383 = 0.99998987 almost a perfect match. Close enough however to conclude this is indeed what was meant.

Okay now for a very quick recap. Here is the triangle when we last saw it.



Larger image

What Nick did next was the stuff of genius. He decided that to solve for our solar system he needed to use all three pyramids at Giza and this he did in a most amazing and profound way. For by using all three pyramids he solved not only the correct placing of Venus (where I had only been approximate) but manged to also place Mars correct to a degree of accuracy that again goes far beyond the realms of coincidence.

Fist of all let me list the three sizes for the three pyramids at Giza.

First and largest is The Great Pyramid and the base of it is 440 cubits
Second is G2 or Khafre's Pyramid and it is 411.04 cubits
and third is Menkare's pyramid and it is 201.46 cubits.

We have used The Great Pyramid's height and base to find Mercury and Earth and an approximation for Venus but Nick took it up a notch when he devised this simply but profound drawing by using G2 in a most remarkable and simple way. Observe:



Larger image

Nick simply lined up G2 on the hypotenuse or long side twice and it set the point of Venus almost perfectly. A most ingenious discovery and setting the stage for finding Mars and the rest of the planets as well.

Nick then found something even I was mesmerized by, by the sheer genius of it. He managed to find Mars as well and to do this he brought in the smallest of Giza Pyramids and used it in a way only someone on a roll would think of doing. It is remarkable again in it's simplicity and for the fact that he found it. But first a bit about G3 and the smallest of the pyramids. Firstly and foremost is the fact that the first quarter of it from the ground up was encased in RED GRANITE. Was this perhaps a bit of a hint that G3 was meant to show us Mars, the red planet ? Also interestingly the west face of G2 or the middle pyramid is precisely 353.5534 cubits from the west face of G3 and 353.5535 is precisely 1000 times the square root of 2 DIVIDED BY FOUR !!! or 1/4 of the square root of 2 !!!

And now let's continue with the genius of Nick L.

As I mentioned the base of G3 or Menkare's Pyramid is 201.46 cubit's and working with that nothing was able to be found but then Nick did something quite clever he decided to calculated THE DIAGONAL OF G3 and this we find is √201.46² x 2 or √40586.1316 x 2 or √81172.2632 or 284.91. Nick then had the idea to subtract 284.91 from the bottom base of our triangle and got 880 (2 x 400) - 284.91 or 595.09 cubits. Nick then decided to add this to our hypotenuse which we had calculated to equal 1137.01363 cubits or √9² + 11² = √202 or 14.212670403551895496970929487628 and by the way 1137.01363 cubits = 440 x 2.584122 Here is the final drawing for the four inner planets of our solar system.



Larger image



Larger iamge

So here clearly and to almost perfection has The Giza Plateau and it's 3 major pyramids shown us how to lay out the four inner planets. They are all needed. It is incomplete without any one of them, G1 gives us Mercury and the "9" side after including height. G2 clearly shows us how to use it to define Venus and finally G3 in whose diagonal of 285 after we take it away from 2 x G1 or 880, lay the final piece for by using the remainder after subtraction 285 from 880 or 595 added to the hypotenuse of our 9 by 11 triangle leads us back to our roots and the square root of 3 to be exact and exactly ! (14.21267 x 80 = 1137.01 (hypotenuse) + 595 (remainder after subtraction diagonal of G2 of 285 from 2 x base of G1 or 880) = 1732.01 to make it equal 1732.05 precisely we need only that G3 equal 201.497.

Amazingly simple and brilliant.

.

a reply to: Ahatmose

I did read it - did you? It did not in anyway address my points. My points are not mathematically they are physical and based on reality.

Your own sources says:

There does not appear to be any exact relation between their centres, or between the corners; and from the nature and appearance of the ground, and the irregularity of the peribolus walls, it would not seem likely that any connection had been planned.

However, you appear to be uninterested in any counter-argument, logic, reality, archaeology or anything to do with the ancient Egyptian culture all you seem to want to do is plot dots and do angles - so please go ahead.

I'll take your non communication as a concession that you have no answers to the huge defects in your idea and plan to lower your eyes and just keep making up stuff.

Good luck

a reply to: Ahatmose


Instead of this intense mental masturbation why not instead just lay out the solar system's order in plain sight using a physical model? Nah that would be too simple.

lol

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Ahatmose


Instead of this intense mental masturbation why not instead just lay out the solar system's order in plain sight using a physical model? Nah that would be too simple.

lol

And how long would that have lasted ?

I am really surprised at the shallowness and mental midgetry that pervades this board. I had expected more. Pretty pathetic when even the rectangle itself is denied. Petrie's data as pointed out in his notes give the measurements as 29227.5 and 35713.5. Not sure why you seem to be unable to see even this simply first step. But you go on believing in your Egyptologists and their silly tomb fairy tales and that The Ancient Builders actually believed that The Sun was, how did someone put it, a mysterious god who rode through the sky in a boat and one day (although I highly doubt it considering the mental midgetry that would have to be overcome) you may come to the realization that the followers of Horus were the planets and they knew that Horus was The Sun and that the followers or planets revolved around him. And let me guess you believe that JFK was killed by Oswald ... right ?

You do not want to even look at the evidence and that is fine. so you go back to your fantasy land and I will go back to mine and if I never read another one of your posts again I will count myself lucky.

But despite your arrogance and your ignorance I am going to teach you how to lay out the three inner planets along with little 9 year old Tommy in my next post so bring someone along to help you with the meaning of some of the big words.

.

originally posted by: Ahatmose


And how long would that have lasted ?

As long as the pyramids, as long as many other monuments from AE, your method requires Olympic levels of mental gymnastics and to ignore a great deal of existing evidence. I would also note that this great 'information' was not detected for 4,500 years, not a single ancient, medieval or other source 'got it' not until you showed up - that isn't success is it?

I am really surprised at the shallowness and mental midgetry that pervades this board. I had expected more. Pretty pathetic when even the rectangle itself is denied. Petrie's data as pointed out in his notes give the measurements as 29227.5 and 35713.5. Not sure why you seem to be unable to see even this simply first step. But you go on believing in your Egyptologists and their silly tomb fairy tales and that The Ancient Builders actually believed that The Sun was, how did someone put it, a mysterious god who rode through the sky in a boat and one day (although I highly doubt it considering the mental midgetry that would have to be overcome) you may come to the realization that the followers of Horus were the planets and they knew that Horus was The Sun and that the followers or planets revolved around him. And let me guess you believe that JFK was killed by Oswald ... right ?

If everyone is a mental midget how come we've ask you questions you cannot answer, refuse to answer and run from? I would think you might want to rethink your position on this? Lol

You do not want to even look at the evidence and that is fine. so you go back to your fantasy land and I will go back to mine and if I never read another one of your posts again I will count myself lucky.

I have looked at your evidence while you have absolutely refused to look at anyone elses evidence - you are pretty much reading from a script and completely uninterested in a discussion on your idea.

But despite your arrogance and your ignorance I am going to teach you how to lay out the three inner planets along with little 9 year old Tommy in my next post so bring someone along to help you with the meaning of some of the big words.

Ah Ahatmose you keep thinking we believe your stuff lol, again you refuse to think in any other terms than math, again and again I've told you I'm not talking about math. You've violated the BIG 'C'. Context. You care nothing about the site of Giza, nothing about the culture, nothing about the science, all you are doing is plotting meaningless dots.

So Don show us how the AE determined the orbit of mercury and accounted for the precession caused by the warping of space.

Pretty pathetic when even the rectangle itself is denied. Petrie's data as pointed out in his notes give the measurements as 29227.5 and 35713.5. Not sure why you seem to be unable to see even this simply first step.

No where does Petrie establish any such rectangle. Here is Petrie's The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh. He published a survey map showing his transit points. He does not draw or plot any rectangle relating the pyramids. That - as I have shown - was done erroneously by a John Legon circa 2000, pursuing his own theories of Orion regarding the plateau. Legon's map is idealized, he seems to have purposely used the golden section (Phi) as the spacing between the pyramids. Since you are using Legon's map and Legon's numbers then it is no wonder you are finding Phi, since that map was constructed around it.

But you go on believing in your Egyptologists and their silly tomb fairy tales and that The Ancient Builders actually believed that The Sun was, how did someone put it, a mysterious god who rode through the sky in a boat and one day (although I highly doubt it considering the mental midgetry that would have to be overcome) you may come to the realization that the followers of Horus were the planets and they knew that Horus was The Sun and that the followers or planets revolved around him.

Wow. And here you are lecturing on Egypt - you can't fathom even the most basic, fundamental tenet of their cosmogony. FTR, the ancient Egyptians did indeed view the sun as a deity - Ra (I'm assuming you may have heard of him?) - who rode the solar barge Mandjet (growing strong) across the sky by morning, then by Mesektet (growing weak) in the evening to the netherworld. I didn't think you could possibly embarrass yourself anymore in this thread but congrats, you succeeded all expectations. (source)

Teaching a 9 year old to build The Solar System and The Giza Plateau

Hi all today I am going to teach little 9 year old Tommy and a couple of adults with tunnel vision and a child's' belief in the fairy tales spun by Egyptologists, Blackmarketeer and Hanslune how to build the solar system. You can listen in if you want.You might find it interesting. Are you ready Tommy ? Blackmarketeer ? Hanslune Great ! Let's begin.

I will ask the questions of Tommy since the other two have a lot of difficulty seeing the obvious.

Okay Tommy before we begin I need to ask you a question. "What is the closest planet to The Sun ?"

"Mercury ?" "Yes that is correct. Good job !"

"Now how far is it away from The Sun ?"

"Excuse me what was that you asked ? What measurement system do I mean ? Well now isn't that a loaded question. It could be miles, it could be kilometers, it could be meters, it could be feet and it could be inches. All of them would be correct but which one should I use for this exercise ? Well Tommy which one would you like to use ?

Feet you want to use feet ? Gosh that would give us a pretty large number. Wait what do you mean I don't understand I thought you said you wanted to use feet ? No that is not what you said. You want to use FOOT ? YOU WANT THE DISTANCE FROM THE SUN TO MERCURY TO EQUAL 1 FOOT ? Oh dear you say I have it wrong again. You did say FOOT but you suggest we use giant inches instead. Okay so let me get this straight you want the distance between The Sun and Mercury to equal 12 super giant inches or one giant foot, is that correct ? Okay why not.

Now folks the point of this is that distances really are only designed to be relative. Whether it is 10 miles or 10 million inches really doesn't matter as long as when we compare the distances between two things we use the same measurement system. For example let us say from Town A to Town B is a set distance, for now not important. From Town B to the Next town is double the distance from town A to town B.

Se we would have this simple example. From A to B is simply 1 unit. It could be any measurement we decided to use. Be it inches, feet , meters or any new measuring system you cared to devise. For a joke I am going to say that this 1 unit is equal to 62 Barones. It really doesn't matter what a Barone is as long as when I relate it to a second distance I use the unit measure of "The Barone" So since the next distance is twice the distance from A to B we have B to C equaling 124 Barones and total distance is equal to 186 Barones. Problem is however you are not familiar with the unit measure "The Barone" as you use something else. You use a measurement called "The Mile" and it turns out that from town A to town B is exactly 31 of your miles. So by simple reasoning we can see that if I have 62 units of my measurement and you have 31 units of your measurement then 1 of your units equal 2 of my units. So the ratio is 1 mile = 2 Barones. So you are correct by saying 31 miles and I am correct by saying 62 Barones and Little Tommy would be just as correct as saying the distance from A to B IS NOT 31 MILES OR 62 BARONES BUT IS IN FACT SIMPLY 1 GIANT'S FOOT OR 12 GIANT INCHES and the ratio or as called when using this on a map the scale would be 1 Giant's Foot = 31 miles and 1 Giant's Inches would simply be 31 miles divided by 12 or 2.5833333. So 1 Giant's Inch equals 2.58333333 miles.

So now let's use that simple reasoning to our solar system as suggested by Little Tommy. Let's use 12 giant inches to equal distance to Mercury and we would have a diagram something like this:



Larger image



Larger image

And below see the orbit of this. The radius of Tommy's Mercury is simply 12, 12 Giant's Inches or ... well let's call them Tommys for lack of a better name for now.



Larger image

Okay now comes the only memorization that is required. I have not figured out exactly why it is this but it is. The distance to Earth using this Giant's Scale is 2 feet and 7 inches or 2 and 7/12ths or 2.583333. as I said I am not sure why it is but again as I said ... it simply is.

So basically now for Mercury we have 12 inches and for Earth we have 31 inches. and as I have shown above the ratio or the number of times Mercury's distance from the Sun divides into Earth's distance from The Sun is 2.583333 times or 2.58333 x 12 or 31 Giant's Inches.

But of course we do not use Giant's Inches so we have to convert and check to see if this system has worked. The actual value of Mercury from The Sun is 57,909,050 kilometers or 12 Giant's Inches or 1 MERCURY UNIT OR 1 GIANT'S FOOT ! The actual distance to Earth from The Sun is 149,598,261 kilometers or 31 Giant's Inches or 2.5833333 Mercury Units or 2.583333 Giant Feet.

So checking we simply multiply 57,909,050 x 2.58333 and if all is well we should get 149,598,261. Doing the multiplication we find that 57,909,050 x 2.58333 = 149,598,379 and dividing the answer we should have got by this answer will give us how close we are. So 149,598,261 / 149,598,379 = 0.9999992 or 8/10,000,000ths or 8 ten millionths. Virtually an exact match. So from now on when you think of Mercury and Earth just think of 12 and 31. 12 the number of zodiacs or disciples or inches in a foot and 31 ... well how about 12 + 1 and then reversed or 13 reversed or 31



Larger image

So by using this simple drawing can we find Venus. Of the three I am betting on Tommy. It is nap time for the other two now so I will be back later.

.

LOL @ OP, your post went from entertaining to complete bonkers. "How to build a solar system?" WTF. You stopped making sense around post #3. Some of your statements about the Egyptians are hilarious. I like to keep an open mind but not so far open it lets my brain fall out.

At this point you are just playing in a sand box. I think Hanslune nailed it - you're just drawing dots and lines as it suits you. To turn the phrase, you are tilting at windmills.

You've proven effectively you know very little of ancient Egypt, you couldn't even recognize the sun god Ra. You actually called members here, and I believe the Egyptians as well, "mental midgets" for thinking the sun god Ra rode a boat across the sky. Well hate to break it to you, but that's exactly what they believed.

Read some of Mark Lehner's books, the architects of Giza found the perfect building site and knew it would be able to hold several funerary complexes. To avoid letting the first one waste space they kept it pushed all the way to the north-easternmost edge of the Mokattam formation. When Khafre built his, it was the solar alignment at solstice as seen from the sphinx that determined its location - not the planets or the solar system. I read that not long ago but maybe one of the other posters can find it online for me. The solstice perfectly bisects the Great Pyramid and Khafre's.

It was so simple and so perfect a plan... as they say, "Occam's razor".

P.S. to add: I never post in the Ancient and Lost Civilizations forum, but I'm reading a great book on the history of Egypt, along with some M. Lehner stuff, so I had a passing fancy to reply to this thread. There are some facts about the AE that can't be argued against, when it comes to their math:
#1 - they had no way to compute Pi. At best they could approximate it be area, such as problems of how much grain could be stored in a cylindrical silo.
#2 - they did not know Pythagorean's theorem. Instead they approxiamted 3-4-5 squres by area. They had land surveyors called "rope stretchers" who could lay out a 3-4-5 right angle with a 12-unit string, but they never developed the math behind it.
#3 - pyramid slopes were calculated by sekeds. 1 cubit rise to x fingers/palms run. Evolved directly from the mastabas and their quarrying methods.
#4 - Phi and the golden ratio was never known to them. Their architecture proves they did not know the golden ratio Phi. Those who first pushed this alternate theory invoked the "squaring the circle" jibberish.

a reply to: frankensence

This thread topic is derivative of John Legon theories, as BM posts above. He is also the guy that pushed the "air shafts" are really star shafts pointing to Orion. That theory is also a bogus claim, as both "air shafts" turn horizontal before exiting the pyramid.

Not only that, but someone has calculated that even if we accept the average direction the shafts point, they point to an empty region of the sky, even if you go back in time to 10,500 BC or 19,000 BC, they never pointed at any star. However, those shafts have some bends in them and as you say, exit the pyramids horizontally.

This thread topic is derivative of John Legon theories [snip] ...He also pushed the theories that giza is a model of Orion. In his plan of giza, you can clearly see where he deviates from actual measures of the site and uses the golden section in spacing the pyramids.

Then how does the same Giza map, both being used by this Legon and our OP, produce two completely different conclusions? The same map the OP is using was "proof" to Legon that Giza was modeled on Orion's belt. But OP is using it as "proof" it was modeled on the planets. I think it goes to show you that you can invent whatever geometric patterns you want to see as "proof" of just about any sort of theory.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

BM he's just reading from a prepared script. I knew him under a different name on another website, or at least he is using some of the same material. He's thoroughly closed minded and focused only on the 'beauty of math". He could care less about the AE, their culture or what they knew or didn't know.

lol

”… The same map the OP is using was "proof" to Legon that Giza was modeled on Orion's belt.” - Macabe

SC: This is simply untrue. John Legon never proposed that the Giza pyramids were “…modeled on Orion’s Belt” –that was first proposed by Massey, Cocteau and more recently, by Robert Bauval. And neither has Legon ever supported the theory. Indeed, he has gone to considerable length to try and disprove it:

”… I have never been convinced by the Orion correlation theory, from the time that I first read Bauval's article on the subject in Discussions in Egyptology back in 1989. Indeed, I have taken the view that his theory depends on a misunderstanding of the religious and funerary beliefs of the ancient Egyptians, as expressed in the Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom… I do not believe that the pyramid-builders, who were acutely conscious of the natural orientations of the star-fields, would have conceived of such a representation; and for this reason alone I do not believe that a correlation between the Giza pyramids and Orion's Belt was intended..." - John Legon

Links here:

Osiris and Orion

The Orion Correlation

”… This thread topic is derivative of John Legon theories, as BM posts above. He is also the guy that pushed the "air shafts" are really star shafts pointing to Orion.” – frankensence

SC: Again this is simply wrong. The suggestion that the general trajectory of the southern shaft of the King’s Chamber targeted a star in Orion’s Belt (Al Nitak) was first proposed by Virginia Trimble and Alexander Badawy in the 1960s. More recently Robert Bauval theorized that the general trajectory of the southern shaft of the Queen’s Chamber targeted Sirius, not Orion. Sirius was a very important star to the AEs.

SC

Well this theory and all this material, including the images, come directly from this blog:

The Solar System at Giza

Which is copyrighted to Don Barone, April 22nd and 23rd, 2010.

I presume this poster must be Don Barone, if not then he/she is violating the T&C of this site.