Spynx's paw

Umm, i dont think there would be much point in carbon dating rock, it tends to be several billion years old before its dug up, which would give the impression that maybe the pyramids are older than the dinosaurs...

But maybe that just what 'they' want me to think

One thing about the pyramids is clear: very little about their construction and placement is random, therefore one must assume that the three pyramids were built slightly out of line for a reason.

Is there any geological reason the third pyramid was off-set? I havn't heard of any.

Therefore, in the abscence of any other explanation for this very big deal, you have to consider Bauval's mapping of the three great pyrmaids to the belt stars in Orion.

Forget the inversion for a moment. How close is the resemblance? I've looked at several images, and I have to say its damn close. It even looks damn close on the debunk sites. And the smaller pyramid does aproximately map to the magnitude of the dimmer third star.

In addition, the professionals took Bauvals core OCT theory seriously. It was presented to eminent Egyptologists and academics and subsequently published in the Oxford journal Discussion In Egyptology.

What about the inversion?

It doesn't demolish the correspondance if the inversion was deliberate. What was the reason? I think the purpose of the whole pyramid complex was religous, so the inversion was religous too. I think it's reasonable to read it as a demonstration of the opposite natures of heaven and earth. The pyramids and the stars are Yin and Yang, opposite and the same. It's a pretty elegant metaphor of an ancient belief.

I'm not sure where it leads, but I don't think egyptology can ignore the pyramids-stars correspondance.

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Ok then, pyramids are the easiest shape to build large structures in. Why? Because the structure is simple, the construction may take effort but the shape of a pyamid allows for ramps to be built, making construction easier.

Apparently, you haven't read "The Fingerprints of the gods" by Graham Hancock. the Pyramids's aren't simply shapes. They parallel complexi geometry and the position of the stars. There is nothing simple about them. They reflect angles and degrees of precision that common man today have difficulties replecating. Why don't you read something before you minimalize the efforts of men.

Ive read enough by Hancock to believe that he is a fraud. A modern Von Daiken if you will.

The Pyramids were placed presciely. So what? an impressive feat but not evidence of aliens or a more advanced civilisation than was previously beleived.

Back to the Sphinx moment

I did hear bt a chamber that was located in the left paw(?) back in the mid to late 90's They were supposed to go back and excavate it a few years later but it dropped out of the news.

I (as well as a collegue of mine) have been looking for information on it -but have come up empty - I posted a simmilar question several months back but nobody was able to tell me anything.

Heard Cayce made a prediction about it - however don't pretend to know a lot about Cayce. (He struck me as a bit of a lucky crack pot).

Originally posted by Losonczy
Apparently, you haven't read "The Fingerprints of the gods" by Graham Hancock. the Pyramids's aren't simply shapes. They parallel complexi geometry and the position of the stars. There is nothing simple about them. They reflect angles and degrees of precision that common man today have difficulties replecating. Why don't you read something before you minimalize the efforts of men.

Hancock argues the sphinx points to the Age of Leo (i.e. where the sun rose at the vernal equinox around 10500 BC). The problem with this is that the zodiac and the constellation of Leo weren't created till the Babylonians invented them in 3000 BC. Sure, the sphinx may point to the physical spot, but the form of the lion is incidental. The allignment is purely coincidental. Doh.

Saying that, I do think Hancock's is right in attacking the conventional dating of the sphinx and the pyramids. Unfortunatly Hancock comes up with some very poorly researched theories of his own, and they give the good theories a bad name.

Both Bauval's and Schoch's work seems valid. Also you have to consider the Egyptian's own records which claim to go back 40000 years and contain no record of who built the pyramids or the sphinx (correct me if I'm wrong on that).

The Egyptians could not be considered the most accurate record keepers, because the Pharoe was a God the Egyptians always felt that this should be reflected in the records. Unfortunately for the Egyptians they were occasionally beaten by people who didnt have a god on their side. When this happened they would rewrite a portion of their history to show that whatever had been achieved by their conqueror had been outdone by an Egyptian in the past.

An example of this can be found when Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, the priests and people submitted to him, the oracle at Siwa told him that he was a God, but as his achievements became more and more impressive the records of an ancient Pharoe were changed to show that Egypt had always gone one better than those uppity Greeks.

i'm not sure how this topic got onto all about the pharoah's and stuff, i'm not really up on that stuff sry. but in reply to the pyramids being slightly out of line, if you're talking about the 3 pyramids i'm thinking about, it'll be this:

3 Pyramids of Egypt, built as an astronomical symbol of Orions' belt. hence it being offset.

Also, about the chamber under the sphinx, why don't they just do a seismological test? that's how they find out about magma chambers, so why couldn't it be done with a small chamber? just an idea however

Longy,

seismo tests are what revealed the supposed chamber. They dug to where the tests showed it should be, and there was nothing there. The tests were in error.

Only,

there was a lot of good research done on this topic. He is a link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think you will find lots of great info and links to the sources.
Hope this helps

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Ive read enough by Hancock to believe that he is a fraud. A modern Von Daiken if you will.

The Pyramids were placed presciely. So what? an impressive feat but not evidence of aliens or a more advanced civilisation than was previously beleived.

i dont think he's a fraud, just not a real scientist. and since he's not a scientist, he doesnt have to use the scientific method to create his theories. alot of the info in his book is quite thought provoking, and quite a bit is unexplainable by conventional means. however, his theories are crap because he makes way too many assumptions without any real evidence.

basically, i dont think he is intentionally lying, he's just so caught up in his own theories that he has blinded himself.

incidently, i do believe that we are not the first technologically advanced civilization to progress this far on planet earth, but as i have no real proof, just my own conjecture from the evidence at hand, its just MHO.

Hrm...I've always wished somebody would be given permission to dig deeper under the sphinx. I don't see why they couldn't start a dig say 100 yards away, go down a few hundred feet and then make a sturdy tunnel that ends up under the sphinx, all without hurting the original foundation.

Anyways, found this pic awhile ago and so I pulled it out of the PDF and made a gif image of it to share it with you all. Not sure who made it in the first place or any history to go along with it. But interesting none-the-less.


external image

link to full sized image files.abovetopsecret.com...


peace

(mod edit to reduce large image)

[edit on 27-10-2005 by pantha]

that's a pretty dam big mistake to id a chamber and for nothing to be there, but hey thanks for lettin me no! sry, am sorta nu at the whole ats postin thing. maybe they were told to say there was nothing there? bit strange. but oh well. just one of those things i suppose. could be anything! but thx 4 clearin that up

StickyG's Pic

Noitce that there's not even a scale bar, can't say how deep below the sphynx that room is.

longy

maybe they were told to say there was nothing there

Nope, they dug it, got to eteh depth where the reading was interpreted as a chamber, and there was nothing there, just more ground. I don't know precisely which device was used to make the measurement, but those sorts of things aren't as straightforward as one might think.

Originally posted by rizla
Therefore, in the abscence of any other explanation for this very big deal, you have to consider Bauval's mapping of the three great pyrmaids to the belt stars in Orion.

Forget the inversion for a moment. How close is the resemblance? I've looked at several images, and I have to say its damn close. It even looks damn close on the debunk sites. And the smaller pyramid does aproximately map to the magnitude of the dimmer third star.

What about the inversion?

I hear the arguement about the inversion a lot from those who reject the Orion link, and my answer is that they are mirror images of the heavens (stars) and a mirror image would be inverted wouldn't it?

I really enjoyed Graham Hancocks video "Quest for the Lost Civilization" where he shows how the great Pyramids line up with Orion, a temple complex in Cambodia (forget the name) lines up with Draco, and the Sphinx points to Leo, all in 10,500 BC. They will all line up again at the winter solstice in December 2012.

peace

Originally posted by rizla
The problem with this is that the zodiac and the constellation of Leo weren't created till the Babylonians invented them in 3000 BC.

Got a Babylonian handy to prove this supposed fact? Isn't it possible this information has been around much longer and was passed on to the Babylonians by a more ancient civilization? I know classes at a university aren't cheap, but it doesn't mean what they teach is always correct. I know I shouldn't make assumptions, but the fact you cling to this tidbit of history is a bit odd.

cheers

[edit on 27-10-2005 by StickyG]

Originally posted by StickyG
external image

The pic is either from one of Randall-Stevens' book or one of H. Spencer Lewis' books. Both were British authors who published book on the Pyramids from the 30s-50s.

Randall-Stevens was a mystic who claims to have channeled these images from dead Egyptians while Lewis claims his drawings come from a secret book. Both images are very similar, in fact there so similar some believe one was copying from the other; nobody's really sure who copied who.

This is a pretty good site that discuss these images
towers-online.co.uk...

I've only recently heard of the mystic/psysic Randall-Stevens, so this is new to me. I was only aware of the Cayse predictions before I came across Stevens.

Anyone know more about:

There is an iron trap door fitted to the ground within the Sphinx's paws, between the Thutmose IV Stela and the chest of the Sphinx. This is not a passage but rather a somewhat rectangular pit that was covered with a cement roof and iron beam then sealed with a trap door by Baraize as a part of his restoration efforts in the 1920s.

Quote From:www.catchpenny.org...

[edit on 27-10-2005 by MrMysterious]

[edit on 27-10-2005 by MrMysterious]

(mod edit to reduce size of large image within quote)

[edit on 27-10-2005 by pantha]

Originally posted by StickyG
Isn't it possible this information has been around much longer and was passed on to the Babylonians by a more ancient civilization?

Anything is possible, however the babylonian civ doesn't spring up as if created by a more advanced one. Why posit that it was a more advanced civ tho? A primitive one that hasn't even built cities yet could keep track of the stars, no? At least to identify constellations no?

Then again, sometimes that formation of cities is seen as coinciding with a stellar relgion, wherein the city is trying to duplicate the order of the heavens on earth. And there don't seem to be any primitive tribes that have the zodiac, or anything similar to the zodiac, that are in existence today (or even in the not so remote past), whereas there are tribes that do have the more primtive religions. Why no trace of the zodiac? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of abscence, but still, why no evidence?

but the fact you cling to this tidbit of history is a bit odd.

its odd that they are pointing out that it didn't exist until long long after the time you are suggesting it had to have existed?

Originally posted by rizla
Both Bauval's and Schoch's work seems valid. Also you have to consider the Egyptian's own records which claim to go back 40000 years and contain no record of who built the pyramids or the sphinx (correct me if I'm wrong on that).

Nygdan,

It seems odd because, as you can see, he seems to agree with the idea that the sphinx is older than the Egyptian civilization, therefore, if a more ancient civilization created it, it seems rather obvious that said civilization could have held the knowledge of the zodiac and its corresponding constellations, such as Leo. To cling to a Babylonian invention of the zodiac circa 3000 B.C., while recognizing there may have been an earlier advanced civilization, that built the sphinx, doesn't quite sync.

peace

[edit on 27-10-2005 by StickyG] ack so many spelling and grammatical errors for one paragraph...I'm losin it

[edit on 27-10-2005 by StickyG]

[edit on 27-10-2005 by StickyG]

It seems odd because, as you can see, he seems to agree with the idea that the sphinx is older than the Egyptian civilization, therefore, if a more ancient civilization created it, it seems rather obvious that said civilization could have held the knowledge of the zodiac and its corresponding constellations, such as Leo. To cling to a Babylonian invention of the zodiac circa 3000 B.C., while recognizing there may have been an earlier advanced civilization, that built the sphinx, doesn't quite sync.

ok, ive been reading yall's arguments and i have to ask:

what difference does it make whether or not they had the signs of the zodiac? maybe they called orion's belt "the sacred arrow" or something. the stars were there, what does it matter what they called them?

you can find many different designs in the moon or stars, but those three stars in particular are pretty bright and grouped together. why did they have to have the signs of the zodiac to decide that group of three stars was important to them?

not that i agree with hancock, mind you. ive read 'footprints of the gods', and his idea of the scientific method is to make a theory, and then manipulate the pieces to work with his theory.


[edit on 27-10-2005 by snafu7700]

[edit on 27-10-2005 by snafu7700]