Giza Orion Correlation - G3 Error Was Intentional

The Orion Correlation Theory (OCT) as proposed by Robert Bauval, cites that the error between the 3 belt stars and the 3 main Giza pyramids was due to limitations of naked eye observation, measuring, laying out and construction.

The following Flash Presentation demonstrates how the dimensions of the main 3 Giza pyramids were determined using the belt stars. This demonstration clearly shows that the Designers of the 'Giza Codex' were much more knowledgable of the belt star asterism and the error in Menkaure's positioning that we observe today - contrary to what Robert Bauval advocates - was fully intentional.

The reason for the intentional 'misplacement' of Menkaure's Pyramid (G3) from the Belt asterism is explained in the Flash presentation. Here's the link:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Here are a couple of additional close-up images showing how Menkaure's original position on the plateau was centered to a high degree of accuracy on the location of its celestial counterpart, the star Mintaka in Orion's Belt, and how the Designer's used a simple 90* angle from the main G1/G2 diagonal to the Mintaka centre to commence the construction of the Menkaure base and from that the bases of Khafre and Khufu.

That the Orion belt stars can accurately render the base dimensions of ALL THREE main pyramids at Giza using this very simple method offers undeniable evidence that the main pyramids at Giza were unquestionably defined by the belt stars of the Orion constellation. No other triad of stars will render the base dimensions of all three main pyramids at Giza to this degree of accuracy using this technique. This level of accuracy can be achieved ONLY with the Orion Belt stars.





One further point - using this technique, the southeast corners odf ALL three pyramids sit on a 45* SW/NE diagonal. Presently G2 sits about 11m or thereabouts adrift from this diagonal. It is not, however, Khafre's pyramid that was set adrift it was the repositioning of Menkaure's Pyramid that gives the impression that Khafre's pyramid is misaligned from this diagonal.

This diagonal is hotly disputed among scholars but clearly this design technique shows that the NE/SW diagonal was fully intended and should be considered a reality. Without it we could not have obtained the base dimensions of Khafre and Khufu pyramids using this design method.

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Here are a couple of additional close-up images showing how Menkaure's original position on the plateau was centered to a high degree of accuracy on the location of its celestial counterpart, the star Mintaka in Orion's Belt, and how the Designer's used a simple 90* angle from the main G1/G2 diagonal to the Mintaka centre to commence the construction of the Menkaure base and from that the bases of Khafre and Khufu.

That the Orion belt stars can accurately render the base dimensions of ALL THREE main pyramids at Giza using this very simple method offers undeniable evidence that the main pyramids at Giza were unquestionably defined by the belt stars of the Orion constellation. No other triad of stars will render the base dimensions of all three main pyramids at Giza to this degree of accuracy using this technique. This level of accuracy can be achieved ONLY with the Orion Belt stars.





One further point - using this technique, the southeast corners odf ALL three pyramids sit on a 45* SW/NE diagonal. Presently G2 sits about 11m or thereabouts adrift from this diagonal. It is not, however, Khafre's pyramid that was set adrift it was the repositioning of Menkaure's Pyramid that gives the impression that Khafre's pyramid is misaligned from this diagonal.

This diagonal is hotly disputed among scholars but clearly this design technique shows that the NE/SW diagonal was fully intended and should be considered a reality. Without it we could not have obtained the base dimensions of Khafre and Khufu pyramids using this design method.

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Hello Scott, excellent presentation with an in my opinion “very surprising” outcome for many followers of the mainstream Egyptology. strrd and Flggd.
My English is not that good you know, so I must ask you this, just for opening the discussion.

Am I right that if I am reading your post correctly, that you support Robert Bauvals proposal with the similarity of the stars in Orion’s belt with the laying of the Giza pyramids?

Am I also right, that you confirm in your presentation, that the position of those Giza pyramids in relation with the three stars in Orion’s belt exactly fits the timeframe of 10.500 BC as Robert Bauvals also claimes?

Then you say that the Designers of the 'Giza Codex' were much more knowledgeable of the belt star asterism and the error in Menkaure's positioning that we observe today and that possible “the design good be crafted into a 3 D model, possible in granite, and past on through generations until the Ancient Egyptians in the 4th Dynasty good build them in the way they are laying now.

Have you any idea who those Designers good be?

And do you think it is possible that it weren’t the Ancient Egyptians who build them in the 4th Dynasty, but those original Designers of the 'Giza Codex'?

reply to post by spacevisitor

Hello Spacevisitor,

Many thanks for your post. You write:

Spacevisitor: Am I right that if I am reading your post correctly, that you support Robert Bauvals proposal with the similarity of the stars in Orion’s belt with the laying of the Giza pyramids?

SC: Yes - I do believe Robert Bauval has made a valid correlation between the pyramids of Giza and the belt stars of the Orion constellation.

Spacevisitor: Am I also right, that you confirm in your presentation, that the position of those Giza pyramids in relation with the three stars in Orion’s belt exactly fits the timeframe of 10.500 BC as Robert Bauvals also claims?

SC: Bauval has - in his lastest book The Egypt Code - moved the correlation date further back in time to c.11,500BC to concord now with the Sothic cycle (a 1461 AE year cycle which was very important to the AE, connected to the heliacal rising of Sirius and how this moment 'drifted' over time). I believe this is a 'red herring' - Giza is symbolic of the ORION constellation (i.e. the belt stars) NOT Sirius.

This is not to say that Sirius was not important to the AE - clearly it was. However, the Giza/Orion PLAN was created - in my view - not by the AE of the 4th Dynasty but by a much earlier civilisation, the precusors of Dynastic Egypt. This Orion PLAN would have had cultural and religious importance to the AE of the 4th Dynasty, much in the same way the 'Ark of the Covenant' was important to the Jewish people. Indeed, so important was this 'Codex' to the AE that - although they may have over thousands of years lost its true meaning and significance - they 'remembered' that it was in some way connected with their remote past, with the 'First Time' of Osiris and so they laid it down on a truly monumental scale at Giza.

Spacevisitor: Then you say that the Designers of the 'Giza Codex' were much more knowledgeable of the belt star asterism and the error in Menkaure's positioning that we observe today and that possible “the design could be crafted into a 3-D model, possible in granite, and passed on through generations until the Ancient Egyptians in the 4th Dynasty could build them in the way they are laying now.

SC: The Designers HAD to have known the layout of the belt stars to a high degree of accuracy for only with such highly accurate knowledge can the belt stars define the base dimensions of all three main pyramids at Giza in the manner I have demonstrated. I have shown in another thread how such accuracy can be obtained using a 'primitive' astronomical measuring tool.

Robert Bauval's proposal that the much smaller size of Menkaure (G3) is so in order to symbolise the marginally less bright star Mintaka is, in my opinion, simply wrong. How does a star that is fractionally less bright to the naked eye produce a pyramid that is about a third the size of it 2 illustrious neighbours. It makes no sense and Bauval has to accept that he is wrong with this proposal and that the geometrical proposal I present makes much more contextual sense. When we look at Giza we immediately see geometry. The smaller size of Mekaure's pyramid is as a result of the ANGULAR offset of Mintaka from the other 2 belt stars. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the brightness of the stars.

Spacevisitor: Have you any idea who those Designers good be?

SC; I have no idea who these 'enlightened' people were. I suggest, however, that they were the precursor to the Dynastic AE civilisation.

Spacevisitor: And do you think it is possible that it weren’t the Ancient Egyptians who built them in the 4th Dynasty, but those original Designers of the 'Giza Codex'?

SC: The AE themselves tell us they had a codex containing architectural plans that came to them in a codex that fell from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep (found on an inscription in the collonade of the Temple of Horus at Edfu). Imhotep is credited with constructing the first 'Step Pyramid' at Saqqara for the Pharaoh Djoser. Mortar from a number of pyramids - including the Great pyramid - have been C-14 dated and were found to be contemporary with the various pharaohs attested to them. We have to accept the C-14 dates.

The arrangement of the structures at Giza, however, contain mathematical and astronomical knowledge that the current academic view tells us was apparently beyond the AE of the 4th Dynasty. Thus then we have a paradox - how did such knowledge come to be 'encoded' into the arrangement of these structures if the people who built them had no such knowledge? If we cannot attribute such knowledge to the AE who actually built the structures, then we have to conclude that the 4th Dyn. AE were following a plan or Codex of some kind that came from some other time/place.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton