1.
Orion’s “belt” and the pyramids.
The three stars forming the Orion belt are superimposed onto the Giza pyramids, indicating the misalignment of the center pyramid.
The size ratios
for the three large pyramids are compared to the four inner planets.
The three pyramids have an angular separation demonstration the orbital periods for Earth and Mars.
4. Planet distance,
and orbital eccentricity.
The distance ratios between the three pyramids are similar to those of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.
The location of the Sun is calculated using the three pyramid positions, they representing Venus, Earth, and Mars. The results provide convincing evidence, indicating that the ancients understood planet motion.
6. Conclusion.
7. References.
1
The Orion “belt” and the pyramids.
NOTE: It is suggested that
Topic 1 and 2 be reviewed before reading the following topic.
Egyptologists have always been open to new suggestions or ideas
relating to the pyramids, but there is one prerequisite to any theory proposed…
provide the evidence and supply the proof!
There are no ancient documents, from the Giza pyramid era,
indicating the ancient’s knowing planetary measure or motion, even the names
used to identify their wandering gods vary from dynasty to dynasty. The
ancients worshiped their gods (stars) and wandering gods (planets), but that is
not a convincing factor to indicate they understanding planetary motion.
The Giza plateau has been methodically searched from corner to
corner and end to end, stones overturned or removed, chambers invaded and their
walls electronically examined. Unfortunately, not one solitary piece of
evidence has been discovered, explaining why the ancients built the Giza
pyramid complex.
My fist serious encounter with the Giza complex occurred in the
year 1986. Having no knowledge in Egyptology, archeology or astronomy was a
great setback for my “hobbyist” approach in attempting to solve the Giza
pyramid secrets.
I have always found astronomy most intriguing, and many
evenings would be occupied reading and viewing “close-up” photographs of our
planets Earth, Venus, Mars, and the Moon. In the interim, Earth-orbiting
telescopes were becoming the new astronomer’s tools, providing a deeper view
into the universe, and revealing additional cosmic events. However, my interest
in archeology and Egyptian studies remained low, to say the least.
During my second year studies, I began to realize that the
designer(s) had placed the three large pyramids in a most accurate location
with reference to each other, and Orion’s belt was a significant contributing
factor to the ancient’s cause.
Working hand-in-hand with many post-graduate students at the
University of Toronto and York University of Toronto, the system used by the
ancient was unraveled. Orion’s belt was the “key” to unlock the Giza mystery,
but there was one major downfall to my theory. I received the most stunning
setback when discovering that the three large pyramids at Giza were not
positioned in the exact format when compared to the three stars in Orion’s belt
(Ill. 1).
Illustration 1.
An enlarged view of the Orion “belt” compared
to the three Giza pyramid locations. Aligning the outer stars with the outer
pyramids indicates the center star misaligning with the center pyramid.
It requires little geometric knowledge to realize, from the
above, that the center star in Orion’s belt is misaligned with the center
pyramid. Many photographs have been presented to demonstrate this theory, but
they were taken with cameras having larger telescopic lenses. Similar to the
above photograph, they are over-magnified, giving the “illusion” of the three
stars covering a greater area than we actually observe. If one were to view
these three stars in the evening skies then their small size it is most
apparent, they are much smaller than illustrated.
Adding to this discrepancy are the other numerous tri-star
combinations also fitting into the three-pyramid geometry. Why would one insist
these pyramids represent Orion’s belt, yet overlook other possibilities for
their design?
Irrational statements are constantly being presented in an
attempt to justify this hypothesis. Naturally, the first assumed reason for the
misalignment is the ancient’s inability to measure accurately; they were unable
to calculate the true pyramid positions on a sloping hillside, yet evidence
indicates the ancients being phenomenally accurate in measure. To compensate
for this first misleading statement, it is proposed that the ancients “moved”
the center pyramid due to foundation difficulties. But the pyramid foundations
are sound, equally so is the hillside they are constructed on.
Regardless of these “slight” over-sights, we are expected to
consider the theory correct and the builders erred in construction.
Egyptologists fully agree that the ancients observed the
various constellations on the “horizon”, and their annual appearance/disappearance.
This horizon is termed the plane of the ecliptic, the location of the annular
twelve zodiacs. The plane of the ecliptic is the path traveled by their
wandering gods, allowing them to travel from one zodiac constellation to the
next, but Orion is not on the plane of the ecliptic.
…The debate continues and the Orion theorists are loosing
ground.
2. The
alternate theory.
There is a vast amount of gained knowledge contained within the
Giza pyramids. By placing the structures in pre-designated locations and
building each pyramid to a specific size and height, allowed the ancients to convey
many messages for those who could realize their intent. Where we have failed,
is our inability to focus directly at the objects presented to us, the three
large pyramids.
An old cliché states; “We cannot see the forest for the trees”.
The pyramids do direct us to the Orion constellation; however, the ancients
left numerous “clues” for us to consider also.
Primarily they focused on something much closer than the Orion
constellation…the inner planets of our solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and
Mars!
By some remarkable coincidence, the three pyramid bases are
directly proportional to the physical size for these four inner planets. The
questions to be asked are; how could the ancients know planet dimensions; how did
they present four various sized planets using only three pyramid structures?
The first indicator is the physical relationship between P1,
P2, and P3 when compared to Earth, Venus, Mars, and Mercury respectively (Ill.
2).
Illustration 2.
Using P1 to represent the diameter of Earth,
then the physical size ratios for the remaining three inner planets are
compared to the three large Giza pyramids.
This pyramid/planet comparison must be the greatest coincidence
ever encountered. The two largest pyramids have a size ratio very similar to
Earth and Venus, while the third and smallest pyramid equals the “average” size
ratio for two smallest planets, Mars and Mercury [ (234.5+168.1)/2 = 201.1 ].
If the ancients were aware of planet sizes, then the next major issue to be
resolved is to discover their system used for measure.
Although we have known the approximate size of these objects
for many years, their accurate dimensions were not known until astronomers
developed electronic radar-detection instruments in the early 1950’s.
Therefore, the ancients could not have known these measures. However, there are
several other unexplained pyramid characteristics relating directly to these
planets.
The small pyramid (P3) is the only pyramid having a substantial
covering of granite angular casing stones at its base. It is believed that the
granite stones covered the base upward to approximately one-half of the
complete pyramid. The balance of the exterior facing continues with stepped
limestone blocks, but there is no definite location indicating where the
builders stopped using angular granite casing stones.
Illustration 3.
Comparing the size ratios for Mars and
Mercury to the possible location where the pyramid builders ceased using red
angular granite stone.
When drawing the two circular dimensions for Mars and Mercury,
a square can be inscribed within the radius of the smaller circle, showing the
approximate location where granite stone was no longer used. Were the ancient
designers attempting to emphasize, the two distinct sizes for the two small red
planets orbiting our sun (Ill. 3)?
If the red colored base for P3 indicates the planet Mars, then
it could explain why the center pyramid has its upper portion covered with
imported bright white Tura limestone. The ancients imported this pure white
limestone from the eastern quarries of the Nile River, and it is only used as
casing stone on P2, the pyramid similar in size ratio to Venus. Was the Tura
limestone chosen with intent, to indicating P2 representing Venus, it being the
most brilliant (white) of the wandering gods?
Illustration 4.
The three pyramids after completion. Did the
ancients choose various stone materials to depict the inner planets and their
associated color?
Viewing P1, the largest pyramid ever
constructed, its exterior is void of angular casing stones. Built using the
limestone quarried from the pyramid site, the finished color and the pyramid
itself, represents Earth rising from the very ground that supports it (Ill.4).
3. Planet
motion.
Although it is improbable for the ancients
to have known planet sizes, they definitely understood planet motion, and it is
the following information that eliminates the Orion belt theory from being the
main focal point of the Giza design.
The ancients were fully aware of the exact
angle formed by the three Orion stars, but their main objective was to
emphasize planet motion. They presumed we would follow their footsteps and
continue studying astronomy in a manner identical to theirs. Unfortunately, we
advanced different than anticipated; we created the studies in archeological
science.
Archeologists and Egyptologists are only
examining ancient artifacts. If we want to uncover the true reason for the Giza
complex, we must use what the designers used. The ancient’s beliefs were
entrenched in astronomy, therefore the average Egyptologists should follow
suite. They should possess basic knowledge in planetary and interstellar
motion, a subject they most often overlook, or completely neglect.
From topic 2, it is demonstrated how the
Egyptian Royal cubit relates to the cubit, using the orbital paths for Venus,
Earth and Mars. These measuring instruments also indicate the angular
realignment position for Mars and Earth. This certainly indicates the ancient’s
ability to measure planet orbital periods with great precision.
The most obvious measure is to determine how
far Mars or Venus orbits around the Sun in one Earth year; the first and most
basic ratio the ancients would record.
Knowing Mars orbits the Sun in 687 days, and
Earth in 365.25 days, then Mars travels 191.4 degrees around the Sun in one
Earth year. Remarkably, the three misaligned pyramids have an angular
separation equaling 191.6 degrees, or the identical angular distance Mars
travels in one Earth year. (Ill. 5).
Illustration 5.
The angular separation between the three
pyramids is identical to the angular distance Mars travels in one complete
orbit of Earth.
To demonstrate this motion, we imagine the
center location of P2 representing the Sun, and allow P1 (representing Earth)
to complete one orbit around the Sun, then returning to its original location.
During this interval, P3 (representing Mars)
will travel 191.4 degrees in orbit and align at the same location as P1 (Ill.
6).
Illustration 6.
Earth, represented by P1, is rotated one
complete orbit around the Sun (P2). During this interval, Mars (P3) travels along
its orbital path and aligns in the same location as Earth.
The ancients set the three pyramids at an
exact angular distance, demonstrating how far Mars orbits the Sun in one Earth
year. The designer(s) believed we would automatically realize their intent;
instead, we looked in the complete opposite direction.
Our reason for doing so is our strong
conviction of the monuments being no more than tombs built for the deceased
kings. Perhaps we should investigate our recent historical records, and
determine who actually proposed this story of fantasy.
Is it possible, or are we willing to admit
our first assumption being incorrect?
4. Planet distance, and orbital eccentricity.
Section i) Three characteristics of our neighboring planets have been introduced: planet size, color, and motion. The only other common feature to be added is their related distances to each other.
Those who understand basic astronomy may
have noticed the previous illustrations showing the three pyramids substituted
by three planets, but they are out of order; Venus is not between the two
planets Earth and Mars. When measuring their distances from the Sun, Venus is
the closest followed by Earth then Mars. Venus is represented by P2, the center
pyramid; therefore Earth and Venus are in reverse locations, however, the
ancients had many other stories to tell.
The illustration below shows the average
orbital distance from the Sun for the three planets: Venus, Earth, and Mars
(Ill. 7).
Illustration
7.
The accurate measured distances
for Venus, Earth, and Mars from the Sun.
By placing Earth and Venus in reverse order,
it invites the inquisitive to investigate the reason why. When fully realized,
it confirms the ancient’s complete understanding of planet orbital distances.
Normally, astronomers compare the individual
distance for each planet from the Sun, but the ancients elected to use the
distance to our neighboring planets with reference to each other.
From the above measures, the ratio equals
(78.34/41.39) = 1.89, from below, we witness the same ratio between the three
pyramids at Giza (Ill. 8).
Illustration
8.
Calculated from Petrie’s accurate measures in inches, the distances between the three pyramids produce a ratio equaling 1.92.
The Giza pyramid locations are transferred from Topic 1, using
the measures recorded by W. F. Petrie, with the southern base of P3 aligned in
the true east to west direction. The distances are measured in inches,
producing a ratio equaling 1.92. Comparing this ratio to the distance ratio
between Venus, Earth, and Mars (1.89), then the ancient erred by a mere 1.5%.
The following section will explain why this small discrepancy
exists.
Section ii) Not
until the early 1600’s AD, did we understand that planets have elliptical
orbital paths. This concept was first realized, and introduced by Johannes
Kepler, the famous German mathematician/astronomer, when he proclaimed his
first law of planet motion...“Each planet moves around the Sun in an orbit that
is an ellipse, with the Sun at the focal point of the ellipse.”
All nine planets, within our solar system, have elliptical
orbits, and Earth is no exception.
Pluto, the furthest planet from the Sun, has the most severe
elliptical orbit, followed by Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun. Venus,
the second planet from the Sun, has a near-perfect circular orbit. The
elliptical orbit is an individual characteristic for each planet, independent
of its distance from the Sun.
The orbital paths for the first three planets from the Sun:
Mercury, Venus, and Earth are shown in illustration 9, and 10 below.
Illustration
9.
The elliptical paths for the first three planets from the Sun, showing the eccentric orbit for Mercury (0.206) compared to Venus (0.007), and Earth (0.016).
Illustration
10.
Measuring from the Sun, the maximum,
minimum, and average distances to Mercury are compared to the average distances
to Venus and Earth.
When the physical sizes for the planets were compared to the three pyramids, the small pyramid (P3) demonstrated the average size for the two small planets Mercury and Mars. Also, it was proposed that the designers covered only the bottom section of P3 with granite casing stones, confirming this structure representing the two small red planets.
From illustration 8, we see the pyramids set into place, indicating the average distances between Venus, Earth, and Mars. The discrepancy in ratio measure is 1.5%, and many could claim this to be coincidental. But the designers were also attempting to indicate their gained knowledge of elliptical orbits for planets, a measure, and concept not realized until Kepler’s discovery.
The most difficult problem the designers had to resolve was how
to arrange the three pyramids to demonstrate both the average and elliptical
distance a planet is from the Sun; they were restricted to only one solution.
Knowing all distance ratios to the inner planets, they chose two ratios of almost equal value.
From the above measures shown in illustration 10, the distance ratio between Mercury, Earth and Venus, when Mercury is FURTHEST from the Sun, is (79.76/41.39) = 1.927. From Petrie’s measures the ratio is 1.92; the identical ratio demonstrated by the three pyramids (Ill. 11).
Illustration 11.
Substituting Mars with the planet Mercury, the ratio of planet distances from Earth, Venus, and Mercury is within 0.22% of modern-day measure.
Not
only is the ratio between these three planets more accurate in measure (within
0.22%, compared to the 1.5% error), the pyramids also represent the planet’s
sizes, and in their correct order from the Sun…Venus (P2) is between Earth (P1)
and Mercury (P3)
5.
Locating the Sun.
From topic 1, it was discovered how the
three pyramids are geometrically linked to the Sphinx. The ancients
successfully accomplished this using “mirror” image mathematics. When analyzing
the results, we can conclude that all measures relate to one focal point. This
point is directly south of the main causeway, situated between the Sphinx and
P2.
From the physical features at the Giza site,
its location is within the lower section of the hillside where major quarrying
was performed. Although some may consider it being a “point indicator” and a
possible location for buried artifacts, it is far from the truth.
When the Giza complex was initially planned,
the designer’s intent was to include all known knowledge. This cannot be
accomplished by using a single reference location; therefore, the ancients used
many other points surrounding the plateau area.
We have now been introduced to the planets
Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars and their individual characteristics are
displayed using ingenious techniques. P2 was used as a double function. It
represents the planet Venus in size, color, plus the distance ratio to Earth.
This pyramid also represents the Sun, illustrating planet motion between Earth
and Mars.
The designers realized we would eventually
understand these measures, and left a simple astronomy question for us to
solve. However, we would never understand the question unless we were verse in
astronomy, and the question forces us to break away from our normal assumption
of planet locations.
Although we perceive these planets relative
to their distances from the Sun, the problem to resolve is: at what point in
orbit are the planets positioned to represent the exact angular and distance
ratios as the pyramids indicate?
P1, P2, and P3 represent Earth, Venus, and
Mars respectively; therefore, Venus must be located between Earth and Mars. The
question is simple, but cannot be answered unless we understand fully the true
distances to the planets and their orbital path around the Sun.
Using computer-aided design, the average
orbital paths are drawn to today’s most accurate measures (Ill. 12).
Illustration 12.
Using the measures recorded by Petrie and
the average orbital paths of Venus, Earth, and Mars, the three pyramids are
positioned as shown. The three pyramids are placed on their associated orbital
paths. A precise astronomical measure is discovered; the red line, drawn from P1
to P3, is tangential to the orbit of Venus.
The previous pages introduced planet
distance ratios, resulting in a 1.5% and 0.22% error in measure. The above
illustration shows Venus, Earth, and Mars on their associated orbital paths,
with a line drawn tangential from P1 to P3, and intersecting the circle
representing the orbital path of Venus. The accuracy is stunning, having a
discrepancy in measure less than 0.01% from perfect. What must be realized is
the tolerance of the data input for the planet orbital distances, they exceed
this discrepancy. Therefore, the measures can be considered perfect.
The three large pyramids at Giza were
definitely built in precise locations to correlate with the orbital paths and
distances for Earth and our three closest neighbors: Mercury, Venus, and Mars.
6.
Conclusion.
There are over two hundred steps to the apex
of Khufu’s pyramid (P1); we have taken but only a few.
Topic 1 introduced the simple geometric
correlation between the three pyramids, indicating the Giza complex being
pre-designed before construction commenced. It demonstrates how the pyramids
align in a manner different than anticipated.
Topic 2 illustrates the ancient’s tools for
measure, showing the relationship to the orbits of Earth and Mars.
We have now witnessed the combination of
both, indicating a message locked within the pyramid designs.
The single line drawn from P1 to P3 is the
one piece of evidence continuously used by Egyptologists to defend their belief
that the pyramids were designed and built in random fashion. However, this
identical line has now become a significant factor in providing the first
evidence, indicating the ancient’s gained knowledge in the workings of
planetary motion.
The measured distance between each pyramid
is known, likewise are the orbital locations for our inner planets. There are
no angular or numerical adjustments, and these measures are entered as
supplied. If the ancients knew these facts, then we are confronted with the
greatest issue ever to be resolved. It would prove that the dimension of Earth
was known to the Egyptians, but leaves us with the question; how did they
compare the physical size of our planet to the other three inner planets?
Egyptologists, who dedicate their time and
effort, cannot be total responsible for discovering all from our ancient past,
nor do we have the right to ask them to decide who is correct or incorrect.
Until all evidence is provided, they can only consider the many alternate
theories and continuously assume. Their science has advanced tremendously over
the past several decades, and the gradual changing “school of thought” from
recent past is most noticeable. However, it must also be noticed that our
inquisitive minds tend to expand, as our world tends to shrink.
7. References.
“106” The Dawn of Man, 1999, sbe…………..Clive Ross
Larousse Astronomy, 1987..………..…………Philippe
de la Cotardiere
___