Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift

My new book, The Great Pyramid Void Enigma, takes as its premise the Coptic-Egyptian 'legend of Sūrīd, which was translated and committed to the written form by Arab scholars in early Medieval times. It is my view that, at its heart, the Sūrīd legend is essentially a true account of past historical events and relates to us the beginnings of a truly catastrophic period in great antiquity, a pole shift of the Earth followed by a great deluge that would overwhelm and drown the ancient kingdom. (It is noteworthy here that the relatively new mainstream science of geomythology is predicated on the premise that much truth regarding the Earth's ancient past can be extracted from these ancient allegorical 'myths').

In anticipation of this impending disaster, so the Sūrīd tradition tells us, the king ordered the construction of pyramids - giant, immovable manmade mountains - into which everything would be placed to ensure that the kingdom could be 'reborn' after the worst effects of the cataclysm had passed. The pyramid was not so much the 'tomb of the king' as it was the 'womb of the kingdom'.

It is the view of science that rapid geographic pole shift events simply cannot occur. As such, the passages of the Sūrīd legend which suggest such an event did occur in remote antiquity (as do many other ancient accounts) is simply dismissed as wild fantasy. And so, it seemed to me that to give some credence to this particular aspect of the Sūrīd legend, then a reassessment of the issue, particularly with regard to what the Giza monuments themselves might tell us, had to be made; hence my new book, which I will now attempt to summarise here.

1) In 1964, Dr Virginia Trimble calculated that the angle of the southern shaft of the King's Chamber (KC) would have targeted Orion's Belt (more specifically, according to Robert Bauval in The Orion Mystery, the altitude of the Belt star Al Nilam) around the time of the early 4th Dynasty (~2600 BCE) when the Great Pyramid is believed to have been built. More recent analysis shows this date (for Al Nilam) to be nearer to ~2550 BCE.



2) Some 30 years later, Robert Bauval (with Adrian Gilbert) found a different astronomical method to date the Giza monuments. Bauval realised that a line through the apex of the two largest pyramids, G1 - G2, created the angle of 43.2°. Using an early star-mapping computer programme (Skyglobe 3.5), Bauval found that the same angle of 43.2° through the two pyramids' celestial counterparts (Al Nitak - Al Nilam) occurred ~10,500 BCE--a difference from Trimble's altitude dating method of almost 8,000 years!



3) Assuming both alignments are real and deliberate, then this ~8,000 year time gap, logically and realistically, simply should not exist since the ancient Designers of Giza would almost certainly have recorded both the alignments of Trimble and Bauval from the very same, single observation of the Belt stars. (Put simply - to encode a unique date stamp into the Giza monuments then it is vital that you obtain two different alignments from the same single observation of the Belt stars). As such, if we then searched for, say, the date of the Bauval alignment, we should then automatically also discover the Trimble alignment (on the very same date), and vice-versa. However, that is not what we find. Instead we find a dichotomy whereby the two alignments of Bauval and Trimble are separated by many thousands of years when, as stated previously, there should not be even a single minute between the two alignments. As both would have been made on the same day, then both should lead us back to the same day in our star-mapping software.

This astronomical dichotomy is suggestive of a pole shift having 'decoupled' the dual-alignment the builders had almost certainly made, breaking it into two disparate alignments (and dates) that would be found millennia later by Trimble and Bauval.

4) Aside from the many ancient texts that testify to it, physical evidence suggesting a different Earth pole having existed in ancient times also comes from many, many researchers of the question over the years. In more recent times the work of Jim Bowles and Jim Alison showed that many ancient sacred sites around the world can be connected by a great circle, suggesting a former equator and thus placing the centre of this circle, Southeast Alaska / Yukon, as being the location of one of the Earth's former poles (there have been several identified).


(Image © Jim Alison. Reproduced here with kind permission).

Given this SE Alaska/Yukon pole position, then it seems that Giza, in that remote time, had been located at a latitude of ~3.5°N and would later be geographically relocated (via some, as yet unidentified, mechanism) to a latitude of ~30°S, and all of this occurring as part of a 180° inversion event. In simple latitudinal terms, Giza would have been relocated some 33.5° (3.5°N + 30°S). Overall shift distance would have been 180° - 33.5° = 146.5°. This is to say that if the inversion stopped short of 180°, then with the Earth precessing/turning through the polar axis (in a great spiralling motion), then Giza would find itself relocated to a different latitude (i.e. 30°S). (Note: A later, more recent inversion event - with no geographical relocation element - would reverse all of this).

5) As the Earth inversion progresses, the Orion Belt stars (along with all other stars) would appear to slide from one part of the sky to the opposite side of the sky and, due to the inversion event, from the northern hemisphere into the southern hemisphere. This event may have been 'recorded' in the star shafts of the Great Pyramid:





6) This shift of Orion's Belt ('referenced' to the star Al Nitak since it is this star's terrestrial counterpart--the Great Pyramid--that contains the star shafts), may also have been 'recorded' in the satellite pyramids at Giza where we see that, as they move round the sky by 146.5°, they also invert 180°.







As such, we find that each set of structures (the GP shafts and the satellite pyramids) essentially corroborates the 'message' of the other - the Belt stars move from one side of the sky to the other and, as they do so, they invert 180° (as a result of the Earth inversion).

Continued. . . .

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Continued from previous.

7) It may also be that when the Belt stars appear at the same altitude in the sky of the southern hemisphere, they apparently are slightly less bright and seem slightly smaller, an observation that may explain why the southern satellite pyramids at Giza were built smaller than their northern counterparts. (It has to be said here, though, that this observation of the Belt stars may simply be a quirk of the Stellarium software).



In Conclusion

It is my view that the evidence on the ground at Giza is almost certainly demonstrating to us what the Sūrīd legend seems also to be telling us--that the stars changed their paths across the heavens and that the Earth was "overthrown" i.e. a pole shift event whereby the Earth was overturned. Between them, the star shafts and the two sets of satellite pyramids at Giza appear to represent:

"...the instruments. . . with which his [Sūrīd's] forefathers had sacrificed to the stars, and also their writings; likewise, the positions of the stars, and their circles..."

From my ongoing research into this ancient Legend of King Sūrīd, it rather seems to me that pole shift events are actually not so unusual in the Earth's great cycles (just as some ancient texts tell us), and nor does it seem that they are the ultimate existential threat that many believe them to be: unimaginably cataclysmic for sure but also survivable. Rather, it seems that pole shift events, imo, are an intrinsic and natural part of our planet's geophysical and orbital mechanics, occurring by whatever means after long periods of time--just as a number of our ancient 'myths' also tell us. But it seems that if we are to survive these recurring cataclysmic events, we must actively prepare our civilisation for them--just as Sūrīd prepared his.

Best,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I am going to ask is there a relation between tectonic plates
moving during an earthquake and a pole shift? Could one lead
to the other? I know very little about this topic and I have heard
that some islands have changed their position after an earthquake.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I could very well be I am too dense to understand this stuff but how could a magnetic pole shift make the Orion Belt stars (along with all other stars) appear to slide from one part of the sky to the opposite side of the sky?

It wasn't a physical shift, the sun would still rise in the East etc..

Unless these guys were working with compasses how could one notice a pole shift?

originally posted by: keukendeur
a reply to: Scott Creighton

I could very well be I am too dense to understand this stuff but how could a magnetic pole shift make the Orion Belt stars (along with all other stars) appear to slide from one part of the sky to the opposite side of the sky?

It wasn't a physical shift, the sun would still rise in the East etc..

Unless these guys were working with compasses how could one notice a pole shift?

Hi,

I'm not talking here about a geomagnetic pole shift event. I'm talking about a geographic pole shift event. Many of our ancient texts tell us of how the sun once rose in the west and set in the east. Here are some examples (from Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision):

"In the second book of his history, Herodotus relates his conversations with Egyptian priests on his visit to Egypt. . . . The priests asserted that within historical ages and since Egypt became a kingdom, four times in this period (so they told me) the sun rose contrary to his wont; twice he rose where he now sets, and twice he set where he now rises.

"Pomponius Mela, a Latin author of the first century, wrote: “the course of the stars has changed direction four times, and that the sun has set twice in that part of the sky where it rises today.”

"The Magical Papyrus Harris speaks of a cosmic upheaval of fire and water when “the south becomes north, and the Earth turns over.”

"In the Papyrus Ipuwer it is similarly stated that “the land turns round [over] as does a potter’s wheel” and the “Earth turned upside down.”

"Harakhte is the Egyptian name for the western sun. . . . The inscriptions do not leave any room for misunderstanding: “Harakhte, he riseth in the west.”

"The texts found in the pyramids say that the luminary [the sun] “ceased to live in the Occident [the west], and shines, a new one, in the orient [the east].”

"Plato wrote in his dialogue, “The Statesman” (Politicus) “I mean the change in the rising and setting of the sun and the other heavenly bodies, how in those times they used to set in the quarter where they now rise, and used to rise where they now set. . . . At certain periods the universe has its present circular motion, and at other periods it revolves in the reverse direction.”

"According to a short fragment of a historical drama by Sophocles (Atreus), the sun rises in the east is only since its course was reversed. “Zeus . . . changed the course of the sun, causing it to rise in the east and not in the west.”

"Caius Julius Solinus, a Latin author of the third century of the present era, wrote of the people living on the southern borders of Egypt: “The inhabitants of this country say that they have it from their ancestors that the sun now sets where it formerly rose.”

“The Chinese say that it is only since a new order of things has come about that the stars move from east to west. . . . The signs of the Chinese zodiac have the strange peculiarity of proceeding in a retrograde direction, that is, against the course of the sun.”

"In Tractate Sanhedrin of the Talmud it is said: “Seven days before the deluge, the Holy One changed the primeval order and the sun rose in the west and set in the east.”

Bonkers idea, right? All these ancient testimonies of the sun reversal must have been out of their heads on drugs or drink, right? For the reversal of sunrise and sunset to occur then the Earth would have to stop and start spinning in the opposite direction, breaking all known laws of physics, right?

Or so science believed up until the physicist, Peter Warlow, showed that science had missed something (see the video below, particularly from 7m 30secs and 9min 30 secs). Contrary to what many scientists believe (even today), the reversal of the sunrise and sunset does not require the Earth to stop and begin rotating in the opposite direction. Sounds counter-intuitive but watch:



Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Yeah that's how I understood your thread and I had to ask..

I know too little about the science behind it and whether it is ridiculous to think the Earth couldn't and doesn't physically flip over from time to time.

I mean, we have Venus, that's flipped upside down with the sun rising in the West.

If it does flip over physically than that would cause major havoc on Earth for sure.

Thanks for the informative thread..

a reply to: Scott Creighton

So out of curiosity, since the dates are relatively close to the accepted date of the Younger Dryas event, could it be that whatever may have struck the earth at that time allowed it to physically shift the geographic pole of the earth and alter its spin angle? And I'm not talking immediately, but maybe over the period of thousands of years until it found its equilibrium again at the current 23.5-degree angle we know today?

I mean, it seems like that would have to be quite the large thing that struck the earth, and I don't think that there is any evidence that something that big caused the YDE, but I'm just spitballing questions since the timing seems pretty coincidental.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The way I understood the tippe -top theory was that it doesn't need an impact..



Just a close encounter with another body.

cool theory actaully..

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Scott Creighton

So out of curiosity, since the dates are relatively close to the accepted date of the Younger Dryas event, could it be that whatever may have struck the earth at that time allowed it to physically shift the geographic pole of the earth and alter its spin angle? And I'm not talking immediately, but maybe over the period of thousands of years until it found its equilibrium again at the current 23.5-degree angle we know today?

I mean, it seems like that would have to be quite the large thing that struck the earth, and I don't think that there is any evidence that something that big caused the YDE, but I'm just spitballing questions since the timing seems pretty coincidental.

Hi,

As I'm sure you know, the Younger Dryas period saw major Earth changes with countless numbers of plants and animals all becoming extinct more or less around this time. It seems plainly evident to me (and more and more scientists agree) that some major cataclysm occurred upon the Earth at that time. The evidence of an impact of some kind is now overwhelming - see The Younger Dryas Impact Event. There are many, many scholarly articles supporting this hypothesis which you can look up.

This is the time I believe Surid's astronomer-priests observed the stars moving out of their normal course across the sky and when the Earth was "overthrown". This is what the ancient Surid legend tells us. It is impossible really to know the precise mechanism. It could have been a fragment of a planet passing through our solar system that crashed into Greenland or perhaps into the ocean thereby generating a wobble (i.e. introducing an intermediary axis of rotation to the Earth) which, in turn, could have induced the Dzhanibekov effect (see video below):



The research of Flavio Barbiero, a retired naval engineer and admiral in the Italian navy, shows that even a very small asteroid striking one of the Earth's oceans could bring about a very rapid pole shift - see his paper here.

But it could be a combination of all of these things, including the gravitational pull of a passing body through the solar system (as per physicist Peter Warlow's Tippe-Top theory). Whatever mechanism is involved, it must be able to turn the Earth over and at the same time reverse the sunrise and sunset (which the Tippe-Top theory does).

Yes, it is vital that we do try and figure out the precise mechanism. But that these events occur I am virtually certain and also that they will occur again, hence the importance of trying to understand the mechanism. But we can only try and do that if mainstream science will look at that. But they won't look at it unless there is sufficient evidence that points to the reality of these events (most scientists today simply do not believe these legends or the evidence thus far gathered). Which is why I keep digging into our ancient past to try and find more evidence from our ancestors and that is what I have posted in the OP to this thread.

Best,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Thanks Scott. Fascinating discussion.

Cheers

A lot of this is way above my good enough diplomat mind. But would an astrological body coming into and out of our solar system cause something like that? Not so much of a planet x or nibiru, but perhaps, and pardon my French. But a big arsed asteroid? a reply to: SlapMonkey

a reply to: Woodswatcher

I can really recommend watching the video Scott posted about Peter Warlow's tippe-top theory.

I said an object about the size of Earth should pass at about two Earth radii distance over a period of 14 days would do the trick.

I'm just thinking, if you ever moved a bowl of water from one side of a table to the other, how the water reacts. Imagine rotating the Earth in a 14 day period....floods of biblical proportions!

I will have to check it out. And yeah, that would make things wet to say the least. Always been interested in this type of stuff. But I feel like a caveman trying to understand everything sometimes lol a reply to: keukendeur

originally posted by: Woodswatcher
I feel like a caveman trying to understand everything sometimes lol a reply to: keukendeur

Lol...dito!!

I do find it fascinating that Venus in fact does exactly what this theory suggests, it's tilted 178 degrees on it's axis while it's rotation is still the same as the other planets if it were turned around. The sun actually rises in the West and sets in the East on Venus.

Since it's our sister planet, do you recon they take turns in being "upside down" with each passing of this mysterious rogue planet?

a reply to: keukendeur

Yeah, I get that, but if one came THAT close to earth, there would be some major records of it somewhere...unless they were all destroyed.

I mean, it is pretty telling that the Sahara Desert started to dry up right around the same time period, too...

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Thank you for the response and for the video and link.

Obviously these events occur or else, theoretically, every single planet on earth would have a rotational tilt very close to being perpendicular to the ecliptic (like Mercury and Jupiter)...but we don't see that, so there have obviously been similar experiences on all of the planets at some point. It is rather curious that Mars and the earth's inclination is within a couple degrees of each other, almost like they could have been interrupted by possibly the same thing at the same time.

Regardless, I appreciate the response. Best regards!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah, I got nothing.

In my naive vision of a planet turning 180 degrees, I could see a solid (Earth) moving 20.000km in 14 days with on it's surface a big body of liquid wanting to continue moving after it stops turning. The Mediterranean sea for instance would continue moving South over Northern Africa, stripping away rich soil and leaving a barren, salinated wasteland that turned desert.

I guess it would leave some traces but I'm just speculating here.

a reply to: Woodswatcher

Yes...and it could be a combination of the two. Maybe some extrasolar object came meandering through the solar system and was large enough and passed close enough that it's gravity pulled on Earth...and then maybe it had some dingleberries that it picked up along its journies and dropped the kids off at the Earth pool, if you know what I mean.

Boom, two things that can result in the same thing combining at once.

But who knows.

a reply to: keukendeur

I would assume that this was a very slow happening, and could have taken millenia. Look at the Sahara Desert...it was riddled with lakes and rivers and wetlands and plants 10,000 years ago, and by 5,000 years ago, it was on its way to what we see today.

It's possible that it all happened really, really slowly. Who knows...

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Thank you for this thread, SC.

The more and more I dig, and watch Earth's ongoing pole shift coupled with weakening of the magnetic field, the more I have come to consider such an event might be ongoing currently, right on schedule.

Here is a place I have found some very interesting information to share, for anyone interested:

suspicious0bservers.org...

You might need to dig around on this site a bit, but there is lots of very interesting data, including great videos!