107 Ancient Wonders

Hi Scott etal

I have created a list of 107 Wonders of the Ancient World that includes many that can't be created with ancient technology or in some cases even with modern technology.

One of the things I focused on is colossal stones over 10 tons moved long distances by ancients.

In the most extreme cases there are stones over 700 tons moved hundreds of miles. This would be the Colossi of Memnon and Ramses. Or for a shorter distance the Baalbek stones.

www.geocities.com...

You may have seen this posted On Graham Hancocks Message Board. If you have any comments on it they will be welcome.

Scott I have taken a quick look at your strings here and on Hancocks board. I'm having a har time figuring out what your theories are. I tried to access your website and couldn't possibly due to outdated computer on my part.

Is there someplace I could read your basics arguments. I get the feeling I must have missed the beginning.

Also on another note that may not be your concern. I tried to access Jim Marrs section posted next to yours and couldn't find an option to post or start new strings. Do you know what is up with that?

Excuse my ignorence I'm new to this board and haven't found my way around.

You sir have yourself a lovely site there.
When i get more time i think ill have a nice browse through them, i shall flag this thread so other members can enjoy your gift.

great site, nice work!
i'm sure i'll be browsing that all day

Thanks I apreciate it.

I will welcome any sugestions or comments after you have time to look at it.

regards

reply to post by zacherystaylor

Hello Zachery,

My sincere apologies - I totally overlooked your thread here. Great link there btw - an interesting assortment to go through. It'll take me a while!

ZT: Scott I have taken a quick look at your strings here and on Hancocks board. I'm having a har time figuring out what your theories are. I tried to access your website and couldn't possibly due to outdated computer on my part.

SC: My website is still under construction at the moment. All of my ideas can be download via links in various board threads here at ATS or from Graham Hancock.

I don't have any ONE theory, per se. The work I have done over the last few years has been largely in support of Bauval's original OCT. The new findings I have made with the Gizamids corroborates Bauval's hypothesis to the point now where it becomes somewhat churlish to argue against the Giza/Orion correlation. Although complimentary in a number of ways, my work differs from Bauval's in many respects. A small example is that Bauval only ever proposed that the Gizamids indicate the past date of 10,500BCE when the Gizamids were at their minimum culmination as indicated by the so-called Queens' Pyramids of Menkaure. I have shown that the so-called Queens' Pyramids of Khufu demonstrate the belt stars when at their maximum culmination c.2,500CE (i.e. 500 years from now). Bauval only ever showed the three stars aligning with the three main pyramids (i.e. the centres of those pyramids).

My own work demonstrates how the actual base dimensions of the 3 main Gizamids were in fact derived from the Orion Belt asterism and also show how this "Orion Blueprint" places the 2 sets of Queens Pyramids. My work also shows why the Pharaoh Khafre (G2) has no Queens' Pyramids when he in fact had more Queens than Khufu and Menkaure together - so why no Queens Pyramids for his wives? Simple - the so-called Queens' Pyramids are precessional markers indicating the maximum and minimum culminations of the Belt stars. There's no need to indicate any intermediate point thus the reason there are no so-called Queens' Pyramids at Khafre's pyramid.

Of course this raises the obvious question: how is it possible that the ancient designers of Giza were able to calculate and project the orientation of the Belt Stars over 13,000 years (to 2,500CE) and place them accordingly? We can only make such calculations using sophisticated star-mapping software on our computers. So - how on Earth did the ancients do it?

I am arguing that what we are witnessing is 'lost knowledge' from a lost chapter in the development of human civilisation. We either have to accept that the Ancient Egyptians were a lot smarter than conventional wisdom presently understands and attribute this ability to them - or we have to attribute it to some other - as yet - unknown external influence.

ZT: Is there someplace I could read your basics arguments. I get the feeling I must have missed the beginning.

SC: It's all here in my Forum on ATS.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by zacherystaylor

 

Hello Zachery,

My sincere apologies - I totally overlooked your thread here. Great link there btw - an interesting assortment to go through. It'll take me a while!

ZT: Scott I have taken a quick look at your strings here and on Hancocks board. I'm having a har time figuring out what your theories are. I tried to access your website and couldn't possibly due to outdated computer on my part.

SC: My website is still under construction at the moment. All of my ideas can be download via links in various board threads here at ATS or from Graham Hancock.


Of course this raises the obvious question: how is it possible that the ancient designers of Giza were able to calculate and project the orientation of the Belt Stars over 13,000 years (to 2,500CE) and place them accordingly? We can only make such calculations using sophisticated star-mapping software on our computers. So - how on Earth did the ancients do it?

I am arguing that what we are witnessing is 'lost knowledge' from a lost chapter in the development of human civilisation. We either have to accept that the Ancient Egyptians were a lot smarter than conventional wisdom presently understands and attribute this ability to them - or we have to attribute it to some other - as yet - unknown external influence.

ZT: Is there someplace I could read your basics arguments. I get the feeling I must have missed the beginning.

SC: It's all here in my Forum on ATS.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

My turn to apologize I didn't notice you responded.

Since your work starts with Bauval's original OCT perhaps I should read that.

Your theories seem to involve a lot of archeoastronomy.

Do you have a list of ancient sites that involve archeoastronomy? and what kind of relation the sites have to astronomy.

This would be very helpful since your working with theory. When one theory falls through it is good to have a good set of basics to fall back on.

I've thought about creating such a list but I don't have time and it would be better if I could find one ready made to link to. Preferably from someone who knows more about archeoastronomy than me.

It may take a while before I can go through your strings but I may get back to you when I do.

Good day

Oh, I'm going to be doing a lot of browsing through your site!
How nice of you to *spoon feed* us all!
Great to have all that in one easy to navigate, concise and user friendly place.
Thanks!
S&F!

*P*E*A*C*E*

Silo Glad you like it.

I did it as much for my own curiosity as well.

*P*E*A*C*E*

Scott etal I found this List of archaeoastronomical sites sorted by country if any of you are interested. It may help sort out archaeoastronomy although it needs more work. It would be nice if it had more details. I could add a little but not much since I don't know much about it.

Good day