[sacredlandscapelist] Re: Graham Hancock
- Jim Bailey wrote:
> catherine yronwode wrote:Perhaps the sacred geometry of the Giza site was more important than the Orion
> > Last we have the "Orion" map -- his theory (deveolped in collaboration
> > with Bauval, i believe) that the layout of the three pyramids at Giza
> > are a terrestrial emulation of the spatial relationshp between the three
> > stars in the constellation called the Belt of Orion. However, as has
> > been repeatedly pointed out by astronomers, the relationship of the
> > pyramids is NOT the same in angular degrees as the relationship between
> > those three stars. Superficially, yes, practically, no.
> Bauval points out that the angle the astronomers point to as being
> significantly different is actually pretty close -- only a couple of
> degrees off. (See Bauval's letter in Hancock's website at
> http://www.grahamhancock.com/GHan_Horizon-Bauval.htm) Again, not
> necessarily accepting what Bauval asserts, but he does defend his claim.
> What does bother me about the three pyramids at Giza is that they are
> clearly *not* perfectly aligned. This doesn't fit at all with the
> precision shown in the construction of the pyramids themselves. In
> particular, why would the smallest be so far off line from the others? I
> suppose it's possible that the smallest was built first and the others
> were too big to bother with starting over even if only a little work had
> begun. (I have no information on the order of the building -- can anyone
> help out here?) I actually think Bauval makes a decent case for the
> pyramids being intentionally a mirror of Orion, but that's a long way
> from jumping to 10,500 BCE for further connections to the supposed
> ancient civilization.
> > You can;t have it both ways -- eiuther they were super-scientists or
> > they were slightly sloppy backyard builders. But they cannot be both at
> > once.
imagery, so the builders accepted the difference from the actual star map as being
within acceptable limits.
Here is a quote from William Eisen's Cabalah of Astrology pp 102-104
Yet the builders of these two sets of monuments [Stonehenge and the Giza
Pyramids], even tho there was a great span of time separating the two
civilizations still had something in common. That was their reverence the
Pythagorean triangles right triangles whose sides were whole integers. In fact,
most of the structures in the entiire pyramid complex, which includes six other
smaller pyramids, the Sphinx, tombs, temples, etc., are laid out in accordance
with the system of natural whole numbers. This fact was discovered by Robert
Ballard, chief engineer of the Australia railways, when he compared the actual
distances between the structures from the surveys that were available at the time.
His findings were later published in 1882 in a book titled The Solution of the
Pyramid Problem, but the book is hard to find and has long been out of print.
In Figure 32 we have reassembled some of the major aspects of his discovery. If
one were to stand at the apex of the Great Pyramid and look due south, you would
find that it would form a 202129 right triangle with the 2nd pyramid (Kephren),
a 345 right triangle with the 3rd pyramid (Mykerinos), and another 3-4-5 right
triangle with the 9th pyramid, which cannot be seen because it is out of the scale
of the drawing. Ballard states that there are many more Pythagorean triangles to
be found once the rest of the structures are placed on the map.