The Giza-Orion Blueprint

reply to post by SeightN


Hi,

...Why change the subject?

SC: The subject of the thread, 'The Giza-Orion Blueprint', has no relation to the topic you wish to discuss i.e. the shafts of the Great Pyramid. Please keep to the topic of the thread.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton

OK, I will not talk about the shafts pointing to something that you are going on about in your theorie and even wrote about in your comments back to me about it and will not go off on a tangent again!!!! lol I will instead go on about the pyramids matching Orions belt stars then, even though you were using the shafts pointing to certain stars in your theorie and just say there is absolutely.nothing ever documented in which the AE had ever written or made known that they the placed the pyramids on the ground ever matching the stars in Orion or any other place in the sky for that matter ...Haha... Best wishes, kind regards, see ya, G'day to you Sir...

reply to post by SeightN

...there is absolutely.nothing ever documented in which the AE had ever written or made known that they the placed the pyramids on the ground ever matching the stars in Orion ...

SC: There is much the AEs did not write down. There is much they wrote down and remains indecipherable to us. There is likely much they wrote down that has since been lost or destroyed. But in the case of the Gizamids we do not actually require the association with the Belt stars to have been written down to conclude the correctness of the theory. We can determine such through other means such as math and astronomy. This tells me the concordance between the Gizamids and the Belt stars is very real and that mainstream Egyptology is quite wrong to continue to reject the association.

Now it seems to me that your mind is pretty much made up and regardless of any new evidence that supports the Giza-Orion concordance, you will simply reject it. I have no interest in discussing such matters with someone who has already made up their mind and will not reasonably consider new evidence.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Two thoughts...

Did you correct for time when you looked at Orion's Belt?
The date the pyramids were built is debatable. Maybe the small discrepancy in your calculations came from star movement over the passage of time. It would be interesting to know the date that lines up perfectly.

It does look like the Pyramids were built to represent Orion's Belt from the perspective of Earth. It has been proposed many times that Aliens had something to do with the Pyramids. If they did they weren't creating a likeness for themselves. If that were the case the Pyramids would be arranged to portray them as the Aliens most commonly see the stars. Since they appear to have built with Humans in mind then it has to be some sort of sign or message from the Aliens to Humanity.

Pardon me if these ideas have been presented earlier in the thread.
I've read most of page 1 but I haven't even scanned through the rest.

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Well considering I also have a webpage solving the pyramids that says on it "THEY REALLY DO MIRROR THE STARS IN ORION" for the last 10 years and have my own opinion, that comment is untrue about me making up my mind up about anything you are trying to communicate, I remain both sceptical and let my mind be open for ,well,anything really,except from wayne herschel, haha but there isn't anything discovered as yet that would 100% prove the relationship from a building plan perspective and until then I "have" to say what I say because i don't think about it, I just say it, thats all, I do not disagree with anything you do or say and will let anybody have their own opinion, theories about anything whatsoever they wish to discuss from God to Aliens, or whatever..but I also will not 100% agree either, sorry but thats just the way it is even with my own thoughts. Yep I should have just shud up, or started a thread up with the subject I was going on about...

reply to post by SeightN

...Yep I should have just shud up, or started a thread up with the subject I was going on about...

SC: Then by all means open a new thread to discuss what you would like to dscuss.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

I suggest you take a look at this Scott...

www.ufodigest.com...

It seems that Kepler isn’t just fishing in the dark after all...

reply to post by LazyGuy


Hi,

Did you correct for time when you looked at Orion's Belt?

SC: The small error could simply have been the result of the level of detail being worked at whereby 1 screen pixel either way could cause the error. The Belt star asterism remains pretty unchanged from the time the pyramids were built to the present. Yes, they rise and set at a different location but since their 'proper motion' is so low, they remain pretty much together as a group with hardly any difference. Perhaps a reason why they might have been chosen in the first place.

The Belt stars have a very important function with rerspect to the Gizamids which you can read more about here on ATS.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by smartie

Hi Smartie,

I had a quick look at the article you linked to. It is so riddled with errors that it beggers belief. It refers to the Cygnus Theory as being developed by 'Collin Andrews'. Actually, it was Andrew Collins. And, contrary to what the article states in the opening paragraphs, Egyptologists DO NOT accept the Orion Correlation (or any correlation for that matter). One or two renowned Egyptologists have considered it worthy of further examination but, in the main, it has been rejected by mainstream Egyptology.

I have discussed the Cygnus Theory in the past with Andrew Collins. It is simply wrong. Its Geo-Stellar Fingerprint simply fails on every level to match the Gizamids whereas the GSF of Orion's Belt matches the Gizamids almost perfectly as you can see here:

The Giza-Orion Blueprint

Furthermore - and I demonstrated this to Andrew Collins - his Cygnus theory cannot account for the two sets of so-called Queens' Pyramids at Giza whereas these are easily realised as the two culminations (max and min) of the Orion Belt stars. You can see this here.

The evidence points, unequivocally to the Orion Belt stars ergo Andrew Collins' Cygnus theory is erroneous. Andrew is, of course, entitled to his opinion. The evidence, however, does not permit me to share it.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Thanks for the info Scott.

There is still the question of why is Kepler pointed in that precise region instead of Orion?

Smartie

reply to post by smartie


Hi Smartie,

A bit off-topic. Perhaps an astronomer will be able to answer your question as to why Kepler is presently targeted in the direction of Cygnus.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by daynight42


i read somewhere that gisa could be 10,000 years older than thought and aligned with the constellation of leo at that time.

Absolutely brilliant, Sir.
I found this out looking at the Chinese pyramids, which I think are older.
www.abovetopsecret.com...