The Orion Connection: Can we Deny it?

reply to post by Akragon


Same hemisphere, same night sky. Its simple.

Orion is a pretty obvious constellation, very captivating to the ancients.

reply to post by 8fl0z


but, to all build pyramids? captivating, i get that, but captivating enough to spend countless hours of intense pysical labor to build. YEARS of construction, because they were captivated by them...

reply to post by FissionSurplus


Me too. I love looking at Orion, even when I was a kid. I actually always look for him and I always say hello to him. I know it sounds silly to some people, but it comforts me. I have observed through my telescope too.

Side note, I keep seeing you pop up in other threads I go to. Must be we are interested in the same things!

OP Thanks for putting this together like you did. I love the topic and you did it well.

Originally posted by JayinAR
"Ignorant idiots?"
What the hell is wrong with you?
You archaeologist types are so damn infuriating. You take an entire field of study and claim to have all the answers, absolutely, when any honest man can see that most of what you claim is based on speculation.
Dates are continuously being pushed back and each time there is academia shouting down people who have said civilization is older than these so called experts have said all along.

More absurdities.

No civilization has been discovered that is older than Sumer, and that was discovered in 1869.

So, any claims (since 1869) that "have said civilization is older than these so called experts have said all along" have certainly not been borne out.

So, what the hell is wrong with you?

Let me see if I understand the situation. My post was in response to:

I am concerned that anyone with half a brain in this modern age still thinks the pyramids were only built 2600 years ago, Next they will be saying they were built as tombs, which BTW is total rubbish...
If anyone is going to make a connection to Orion then go the whole hog and explain the pyramids were built at least 10000yrs before the above 2600yrs, and that all the pyramids combined show a map, with the 3 great pyramids corresponding to Orions belt...

yet you call me out on speculation?

Originally posted by JayinARThe OP is valid whether you like it or not and the Giza Pyramids don't appear to be tombs. And those ARE facts.

Of the two ideas in the above quote, the first has yet to be determined (in fact, there's no evidence for it,) and the other can easily be proven to be erroneous.

If you hold the opinion that a purely speculative observation and a proveable falsehood are facts, then I can see where your coming from with this.

Harte

reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw


The Orion in constellation is not always visible and the chambers point to many different places at different times of the day and night or week or year. I asked for verifiable proof that these pyramids were specifically stated as having a correlation to Orion and I have only seen and heard theories...I have not been offered actual proof. Why? because we simply cannot verify it, we can only offer supposition. Show me proof.

reply to post by soulpowertothendegree


One of the "tunnels" in the kings chamber of the great pyramid is pointed directly at the constellation Orion... More specifically its belt...

how can it be a coincidence that they built the pyramid around that tunnel?

Why would they spend the time they did to build these structures in the exact placement that mirrors those three stars?

One Chinese pyramid today:

www.panoramio.com...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by soulpowertothendegree

 

One of the "tunnels" in the kings chamber of the great pyramid is pointed directly at the constellation Orion... More specifically its belt...

how can it be a coincidence that they built the pyramid around that tunnel?

Why would they spend the time they did to build these structures in the exact placement that mirrors those three stars?

It actually doesn't:

The astronomer Virginia Trimble noticed in 1964 that the southern shaft of the King's chamber points to Orion. Bauval made further calculations and found out that this happened about 100 years after the accepted building date of the Great Pyramid. At that time the shaft pointed exactly to the star the Great Pyramid represents in Orion's belt. Coincidence?


Bauval extended the idea and found to his surprise that the southern shaft of the Queen's Chamber pointed at the brightest star in the sky, Sirius, at almost the same time. And Sirius is the representation of Isis, who was the sister and great love of Osiris (who was represented in the sky by Orion). Another coincidence?
The last shaft also points to a relevant star in the north so, all in all, this really looks sensational.

There are some problems with the idea. For example: The inclination of the pyramids relative to the equator was different, at the time of their construction, from that of the belt stars against the celestial equator (and therefore against the horizon) at their highest position in the sky. Therefore Bauval suggested that the pyramids were planned at another time. After some calculations he concluded that the inclinations matched at about 10500 BCE.
The other stars also had their best correlation with their pyramids around that time so the authors concluded that the pyramids were planned around the end of the last ice age. Since the shafts in the Great Pyramid point to a building date of about 2450 BCE, the planning and building dates differ by about 8000 years!
But that "shaft date" also creates problems because it is too young. At present Egyptologists are tending to make the Old Kingdom a little bit older rather than younger.

Such a revolutionary thesis generated objections from academia. The first inconsistency found was about a mixup of the directions implemented into the concept, and shortly afterwards it was discovered that the inclinations did not match at the claimed planning date.
But that is secondary. The biggest question is, if the foundation of the theory is correct, the necessary link with Ancient Egyptian culture. Can the Osiris/Orion-myth be traced back to the beginning of the pyramid building era? My preliminary investigations found some serious problems here.

Read the rest here.

And, what do you mean by "...that they built the pyramid around that tunnel" ?

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Speculation can be valid regardless of basis in fact. It is called logic.
Also, are you claiming you can PROVE the GP was a tomb? Haha

In regards to your next post, yes, in a way, the Pyramid was built around the tunnels. At least in the sense that they were incorporated in the initial design and the blocks were arranged in such an (amazing) way that when it all came together there were a few nifty little tunnels.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Harte

 

Speculation can be valid regardless of basis in fact. It is called logic.

Whoa. Now speculation is what logic is?

Some speculation is logic-based. What I've seen here is not an example of that sort.

Originally posted by JayinAR
Also, are you claiming you can PROVE the GP was a tomb? Haha

If you doubt it, you need to account for the standard funerary temple found in front of virtually every pyramid from that era.

Or, I suppose, you could just doubt it for no good reason at all, should you choose to.

Originally posted by JayinARIn regards to your next post, yes, in a way, the Pyramid was built around the tunnels. At least in the sense that they were incorporated in the initial design and the blocks were arranged in such an (amazing) way that when it all came together there were a few nifty little tunnels.

I'm relived that this is what you meant. Around here, you never know, right?

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Look man, much work has been done in regards to the pyramids representing Orion's belt. Personally, I am on the fence, but it is valid speculation. Especially when you begin to consider that other complexes appear to have similar layouts.

In regards to the tombs. What is a tomb's function? To house a dead body. No, the iza Pyramids do not APPEAR to be tombs.

Actually, the coolest theory I have yet to see is that the Giza Complex represents a Polar Circumference map. No links as the info was presented to me on yahoo chat many years ago direct from the source. Apparently he is still keeping the info close to his chest, but it was fascinating to say the least.

He pointed to two key locations based on his interpretation of the so called map. One was in the Yucatan and the other was in the Bay of Bengal. What was interesting was that a short while later they found a sunken city in the Bay of Bengal pretty much where dude said one would be found.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Harte

 

Look man, much work has been done in regards to the pyramids representing Orion's belt. Personally, I am on the fence, but it is valid speculation. Especially when you begin to consider that other complexes appear to have similar layouts.

In regards to the tombs. What is a tomb's function? To house a dead body. No, the iza Pyramids do not APPEAR to be tombs.

The Great Pyramid was opened in the early 800's AD. It's been lying wide open since then. Zahi Hawass wasn't around for most of that time to protect the artifacts within.

It is exceedingly rare to find any Ancient Egyptian tomb that hasn't been robbed. Also, it turns out that there is good reason to believe that the GP was robbed during the Middle Kingdom, if not before.

I wouldn't be surprised by any Orion alignment anywhere in the world. It's a prominant configuration of stars that can be seen and recognized almost everywhere on the planet.

They didn't have cable back then, so staring at the sky (while keeping watch or whatever) was pretty much the highlight, after sex, food and hunting, in that order. Also, they didn't understand what they were seeing in the sky. I'd be impressed too.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


So what are the odds, in your estimation, that Hancock got it right about the entire plateau and river representing the night sky as seen in 10,500BC?

Maybe not that that was when it was built, but that that is what it represents? Because the similarities are striking.

ETA: If they were able to build that all based on their knowledge of astronomy, that is some damn advanced astronomical knowledge. And precession of the equinoxes would be almost a given considering they could estimate that's what the sky looked like 7,000 years before.

Originally posted by JayinAR
Actually, the coolest theory I have yet to see is that the Giza Complex represents a Polar Circumference map. No links as the info was presented to me on yahoo chat many years ago direct from the source. Apparently he is still keeping the info close to his chest, but it was fascinating to say the least.

He pointed to two key locations based on his interpretation of the so called map. One was in the Yucatan and the other was in the Bay of Bengal. What was interesting was that a short while later they found a sunken city in the Bay of Bengal pretty much where dude said one would be found.

You must be talking about Mahabalipuram, where there were supposed to be seven temples, several of which were thought to be under the sea.
After (and just before - when the water all ran out prior to the inundation) the tsunami several years back, evidence of other temples was seen/discovered.

The region is sinking due to tectonic activity. One of the flooded temples was still above water during the British colonization.

The city itself is still high and dry.

Harte

hi AK
i have two sources for you:
www.crichtonmiller.com...
books.google.ca...=onepage&q&f=false

If you find the time, let me know what you think


teaser
when the robot first toured the shaft, on film under the star chart showing the stars at 10,000 BC, is a celtic cross. The robot runs it over.
no civlizations older then sumer?
oh. so what are all those habitations that are found on the continantal shelf...
and what about the water marks on the sphonx?

oh ORION?
Aryan?...
well, read the LA Waddel book and watch the Miller movie ...they can be found

reply to post by Danbones


Schoch has basically been thrown under the bus for daring to use actual science to dispute the conjecture which is archaeology.
In other words, Harte will thumb his nose and say neener neener neener to the water erosion idea of the Sphinx.

reply to post by Harte


is there even a part of you that thinks it's kinda crazy these pyramid complexes looking so similar? so CHALLENGING to build yet here they are scattered across the globe, as tombs..

you don't think that a bit odd??

i'm being totally sincere here!

Originally posted by JayinAR
In other words, Harte will thumb his nose and say neener neener neener to the water erosion idea of the Sphinx.

Why should I? Schoch's date calculation is not based on any water erosion at all. It's based on subsurface weathering of the limestone bedrock, which occurs to to exposure to the air.

You can find it in his paper.

Seismic geophysical surveys indicate that the subsurface weathering of the Sphinx enclosure is not uniform. This strongly suggests that the entire Sphinx ditch was not excavated at one time. Furthermore, by estimating when the less-weathered portion of this area was excavated-and thus first exposed subaerially-one can tentatively estimate when initial excavation of the Sphinx enclosure may have begun.
SNIP
Seismic lines taken in front of and along the body of the sculpture on either side-east (seismic line S4), north (seismic line S1) and south (seismic line S2) of the monument-indicate that below the surface the limestone is weathered up to a depth of six to eight feet (1.8 to 2.5 meters). However, along the back-west side (seismic line S3) -of the Sphinx the identical limestone has been weathered only to a depth of approximately four feet (1.2 meters). These results were completely unexpected. The same limestone surrounds the great sculpture (the floor of the Sphinx enclosure where our seismic lines were taken consists of Gauri's [18] Rosetau Member, or Member 1), and if the entire body of the Sphinx was carved out of living rock at one time, it would be expected that the surrounding limestone would show the same depth of subsurface weathering.

One possible interpretation of this seismic data is that, initially, only the sides and front (eastern portion) of the Sphinx body were carved free of the surrounding rock, so that the Sculpture projected as an outcropping, with what would later become the figure's rump or rear (western portion) still merged with the natural rock.
SNIP
Egyptian Egyptologist Selim Hassan [19] suggested that the Sphinx was originally meant to be viewed only from the front (rather than from the sides or rear), so that, with the Sphinx Temple in front of it, it seemed to sit upon a pedestal.Alternately, the rump or western end of the sculpture may have been freed from the bedrock originally, but only by a very narrow passage not sampled by our April 1991 seismic line.
SNIP
A reasonable hypothesis is that when Khafre repaired and refurbished the Great Sphinx and its associated temples in ca. 2500 B.C., he had the back (western end) of the colossal sculpture carved out and freed from the cliff (or enclosure wall). It is difficult to argue that the rump of the figure was carved any later than Khafre's time; the base of the rump has, like the rest of the core body of the Sphinx, been weathered and repaired with limestone blocks. Furthermore, one must account for the non-trivial four feet (1.2 meters) of subsurface weathering detected in the area behind the carved figure, between the rump and the enclosure wall. If, for instance, one hypothesized that the rump of the Sphinx had been freed during New Kingdom restoration efforts to the sculpture, how could we account for this deep subsurface weathering, given the prevailing and conditions on the Giza Plateau from New Kingdom times to the present and the historical fact that the Sphinx enclosure has been filled with desert sands for much of the period since the New Kingdom?

Based on either this chain of reasoning, or the scenario suggested immediately above-and given that the weathering of the limestone floor of the Sphinx enclosure is fifty to 100 percent deeper on the front and sides of the figure than at its rear-we can estimate that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx (i.e., the carving of the main portion of the body and the front end) may have been carried out ca. 7000 to 5000 B.C. (in other words, that the carving of the core body of the figure is approximately fifty to 100 percent older than ca. 2500 B.C.). This tentative estimate is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is "protected' by the overlying material), the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even earlier than 9,000 years ago.

Note that he has to assume Khafre finished off the rear, from which time he measures the weathering to arrive at his date, and that he assumes that notoriously non-homogeneous limestone is homogeneous. He also doesn't tell you that, by his own logic, the sides of the enclosure far predate both the front and the rear of the enclosure. He doesn't mention that finding. Do you wonder why?

Harte

Originally posted by knoxie
reply to post by Harte

 

is there even a part of you that thinks it's kinda crazy these pyramid complexes looking so similar? so CHALLENGING to build yet here they are scattered across the globe, as tombs..

you don't think that a bit odd??

i'm being totally sincere here!

No, it's not odd.

It's the only big shape they could build, given the architectural knowledge of the time.

There are a lot of differences between Egyptian pyramids and those elswhere. The biggest, IMO, is that the majority of pyramids outside Egypt are actually mounds. Dirt mounds or rock mounds that are covered over with stonework. And many don't even have the stonework.

It is the shape sand makes when you pile it up.

It is the shape you made when you were a kid playing with blocks. Your other shapes kept falling over, remember?

EDIT- Sorry, I just realized that you must be referring to layouts resembling Orion's belt.

Even if that were so, I already explained why I don't think it odd. Orion's prominant. No cable TV, etc.

Harte