Giza Precession Wheel - Update

Some of you may be familiar with the Giza Precession Wheel hypothesis. This hypothesis shows how the arrangement of the structures at Giza (i.e. the Sphinx, the 3 Great Pyramids, the 2 sets of 3 Queens Pyramids and the 2 satellite 'cult' pyramids) can be interpreted as a 'precession clock'. This clock seems to indicate 2 time periods that correlate with the maximum and minimum culmination of the belt stars of the Orion constellation.

The importance of these time periods is not known but it may be of significance that during the minimum culmination of the belt stars c.10,500BCE, major changes were occurring on Earth and there is perhaps evidence of a massive cometary impact at this time. The second time period of importance indicated by the 'precession clock' is perhaps marked by the maximum culmination of the belt stars around 2,500CE.

Of course, it would be a remarkable coincidence if the 2 time periods being indicated commenced precisely at minimum or maximum culmination of the belt stars. What the clock seems to indicate, however, is that the time periods of importance commence approximately 666 years AFTER the culmination points. The duration of this 'important time' would seem to last approximately 2,448 years.

It is perhaps possible that the cycles indicated are to be considered as being 'back-to-back' i.e.at opposite ends of the precessional cycle (min and max culmination). This may be alluded to with the two back-to-back Sphinxes on the Dream Stele which stands between the paws of the Great Sphinx.

This simplified Gize Precession Wheel hypothesis shows then that the 'important times' will always commence 666 years after the belt stars reach their maximum or their minimum culmination and this period will last for approximately 2,448 years at each end of the precessional cycle. In effect, when the belt stars reach either max or min culmination, the 'countdown' (666 years) to the 'important time' should commence.



(Mods Note: Image from my own web site).

Regards,

Scott Creighton

A while back when I was first studying 2012 I found this information of yours, and it seemed so obviously true to me.

Nothing prophethetic is scientifically provable, and I'm sure you realized that by now. (5/2009)

I enjoy the theory, and still think your intuitions are correct. I didn't read the book, because I think I already know whats going to happen, either way, I think you should reveal your personal conclusions and prophecies to the public via your website, or some other avenue.

I've searched and searched for discussions concerning the giza mystery, and all I turned up was this epic debate on ATS about proof and why you were very wrong. I like ATS, but the scientific mind is clouded and has defined boundaries.

Truthseekers need to come together now, otherwise what's the point of knowing?

[edit on 11-5-2009 by sticky]

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Further extraordinary facts have recently emerged regarding the Giza Precession Wheel.



(MODS please note: Image from my own website.)

1200 & 2400 Cubits!! Can there be any doubt that this implied circle was devised for the measurement of TIME?

Also - the value of 7,543 AE cubits when converted to inches (7,543 x 20.618") presents to us the KEY PRECESSION NUMBER 155521.

155521/12 = 12,960 (or half of 1 Precession year)

155521/360 = 432 (the distances between the outside corners of the Great Pyramid's four sockets add up to an extremely exact value for a half minute of equatorial longitude, or 1/43200 of the equatorial circumference of the earth).

155521/72 = 2,160 (this is the number of years in each astrological age which is equivalent to 30* of precessional shift). A single degree of precessional shift takes, of course, 72 years (approx).

155521/6 = 31,104 (this is almost precisely the longitude of Giza. ALSO - The ancient Egyptians used a 360 day calendar and added an extra 5 epagomenal days at the end of each year to give a 365 day calendar. Excluding the epagomenal days, we find in 1 Egyptian year there are 31,104,000 seconds).

This article (link below) shows how the ancients may have devised the humble inch from the gravity and rotation of the Earth:

www.grahamhancock.com...

There can be little doubt that the structures at Giza have been very carefully placed to create a grand precession clock; a clock that clearly demonstrates two particular time periods some 666 years after the minimum and maximum culminations of the Orion Belt Stars. Why these two periods of time are being highlighted to us is anyone's guess but it may be of significance that during the last highlighted time period c.10,500BCE (min culmination), many animal and plant species became extinct and, according to some scientists, the Earth was hit by a comet (Firestone, West & Warwick-Smith), causing all manner of conflagrations and innundations.

Why then is the second culmination date c.2,500AD being shown to us in the Giza Precession Wheel? 666 years from the 2,500AD culmination of the belt stars brings us to 3,166AD. Why then, we must ask, are the ancient designers of this grand precession clock pointing us to this date? We can but speculate.


Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 11/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Hey Scott interesting work, it got my attention, but I have a few questions.

1) If the Pyramids and the Syphinx where erected at different periods in time, how did the continuation of building the later pyramids continue so accuratley?

2) Well I think this is a little important, if the belt is in accordance with Orions belt why did it leave out Orions 2 brightest stars? I mean wouldn't that have been the first ones mapped? Two stars are Betelgeuse and Rigel. After looking at your notes I did not see these two stars anywhere, which they should be present.

3) Why only a select few of pyramids? Why only focus on a few instead of the pyramids that were destroyed or the pyramids not finished? I mean wouldn't they also be important to this idea?

reply to post by TheMythLives

Hello TheMythLives

Thanks for your questions which I shall try to answer as best I can:

TML: 1) If the Pyramids and the Sphinx where erected at different periods in time, how did the continuation of building the later pyramids continue so accurately?

SC: In the colonnade of the Temple of Horus at Edfu there is a small inscription that tells us that the AE constructed their monuments from architectural plans that came to them in a codex from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep (3rd Dynasty). It is my contention that this codex included a plan for the Giza site, crafted perhaps in a durable material such as granite and passed down from antiquity to the AE of the 3rd Dynasty (Imhotep) who then initiated the pyramid-building age by constructing the Step Pyramid at Saqqara. The long-term objective was to make manifest this ancient codex (model of Giza) but the AEs knew that they would first have to learn how to construct stable, smooth-sided pyramids. It would be a considerable learning-curve with many failures and lessons to be learned with each pyramid construction.

When the AEs finally mastered the art of building stable, smooth-sided pyramids (the Red Pyramid at Dashur was the first), they then commenced with the building of their ancient codex (a granite model of Giza perhaps) and during the 4th Dynasty this long-term objective was finally achieved. Pyramid structures built thereafter would never compare with those at Giza and would serve only as a "homage". This can be seen in terms of the much smaller scale of the later pyramid structures and their inferior construction.

So, with a 3D granite model, the Giza site could have been completed in stages (by the three Kings of the 4th Dynasty) and, quite possibly, parts of the plan (such as the Sphinx) may actually have been constructed by the Designers of the codex which could, of course, explain why some scholars consider the Sphinx to be considerably older than the date orthodox scholars ascribe to it.

TML: 2) Well I think this is a little important, if the belt is in accordance with Orions belt why did it leave out Orions 2 brightest stars? I mean wouldn't that have been the first ones mapped? Two stars are Betelgeuse and Rigel. After looking at your notes I did not see these two stars anywhere, which they should be present.

SC: Giza is a clock. Instead of the clock having 24 hours around its face, the Giza precession clock represents 26,000 years! The clock’s timing mechanism is the regular motion of the stars. But WHICH STARS are we to track around this clock?

If there existed only ONE pyramid structure at Giza it would be quite impossible to know which star to track since one pyramid structure could represent ANY star. With TWO stars (pyramids at Giza) the problem is much the same since any TWO stars (points) can create a straight line. With THREE stars, however, the situation improves dramatically and especially so if the chosen triad of stars forms a very tight group and has a fairly distinctive pattern.

This is what we find with the Belt stars of the Orion constellation. We only require the belt stars for us to know which triad of stars are being represented. Any other stars depicted in the design would be entirely superfluous to this requirement – they are simply not needed for the purposes of allowing us to be able to identify the ‘precession marker' - Orion's Belt. Three stars in a tight group, forming a distinctive pattern are sufficient to allow us to identify the precession marker – Orion’s Belt. Constructing other structures to represent other stars of the constellation is simply not needed and would have created unnecessary additional work and costs. Three stars is the absolute minimum required to ibe able to dentify a group of stars.

TML: 3) Why only a select few of pyramids? Why only focus on a few instead of the pyramids that were destroyed or the pyramids not finished? I mean wouldn't they also be important to this idea?

SC: As I have explained above in point 1 – I see that Giza was the OBJECTIVE of the AEs (from an ancient, ‘sacred plan’). All structures prior to Giza were a learning-curve, the goal of which was to learn how to construct stable, smooth-sided pyramids. If they collapsed they were abandoned and the lesson of their failure hopefully learned. Thereafter, structures were less grand and of inferior construction, built merely as a homage to the former greatness.

This is not to say that the Kings of Giza did not ‘utilise’ the structures they were building as tombs for themselves. Why shouldn’t they? They did, afterall, build them and they were seen as the ‘vehicle that would carry them into the Afterlife’. It remains unclear, however, whether the 4th Dynasty Kings that built Giza were themselves aware of the precessional knowledge that is clearly encoded within the Giza design.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 11/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Actually did help very much. And thank you for explaining it in great detail as well mate. I will look into this matter more, its very interesting. Do you have suggestions for reading up and learning more about it?

reply to post by TheMythLives

Hello TML,

Sorry that I have not responded sooner. I've been caught up with a number of other things lately.

I shall be posting some new research shortly, expanding more on the Giza Precession Wheel concept. I think you will find it of some interest.

Very best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Awesome, look forward to it. and don't worry about being late, real life happens and investigations and research do not get done on their own.

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Hello Everyone - A Further Update.....

Some of you will be familiar with the so-called "Lehner Line" (see below). and how Khafre's Pyramid sits slightly off this line.

Image 1:



Having designed the bases dimensions of the Gizamdis using the Belt Stars of Orion and this "Lehner Line" (see the Giza-Orion Blueprint for more information on this), why would the Designers then offset G2 from the diagonal (i.e. the so-called "Lehner Line")?

The answer as to why the middle pyramid (G2) was offset from the diagonal (from whence it was designed) may lie in the Belt Stars themselves, thus:

Image 2:



(Mods Note: Images from my own web site).


With this arrangement we can be sure that the fulcrum of the design is set with G1 & G3 (Al Nitak/Mintaka) and not - as has previously been assumed in Bauval's OCT - G1 & G2 (Al Nitak/Al Nilam).

Regards,

Scott Creighton