PDA

View Full Version : Great Pyramid Pleiades Connection



Rigel
01-07-2013, 02:24 PM
I recently made some discoveries which I think some may find interesting. It involves the star group known today as the Pleiades and in ancient Egypt as the Seven Hathors. I'll start the thread by showing you the most interesting Pleiades/Giza correlation, the exact matching of the positions of the two upper stars of the Pleiades when they are in the western sky, Atlas at the position of the King's Chamber and Alcyone at the position of the Queen's Chamber.

Now, you might say that I could pick whatever time during the night when the two stars happened to match those positions, since the orientation of the Pleiades group changes as it goes through its curved path from East to West. Well, it's not a random time, it's an exact time which I have no control over, the time when Alcyone is due West. Now what if Atlas and Alcyone perfectly matched up to the exact centers of the two chambers exactly when Alcyone, the brightest star in the group, was due West in the 4th Dynasty just as the chamber is aligned due West/East and the QC is right on the centerline of the pyramid as Alcyone was in the middle of the western sky? That would be one heck of a coincidence, wouldn't you think? Now I'm going to show you exactly that.

The image below is probably the most stunning thing you will ever see regarding the Great Pyramid. I overlaid a transparency of the Pleiades, which I got from the astronomy program Starry Night, set the coordinates of the Great Pyramid, and I used the year 2588 BC. The pyramid diagram is an exact CAD replica of the Great Pyramid cross section. The stars are in the same positions throughout the 4th Dynasty so I could have used any random year between 2500 and 2997 BC. I could not have used an earlier date because the Pleiades did not reach due West prior to that, because of precession.

I also theorize that there is a 3rd secret chamber at the position of Merope in the image, which is the next star down and left from Alcyone. This would be where the mummy of Khufu is housed along with the statue of Hathor which is absent from the niche in the Queen's Chamber. You may also note that the star at the lower right, Taygeta, is right at the base of the pyramid, making the chances of the chambers matching the other two star positions even less likely to be coincidence. The niche in the QC faces West, so the statue of Hathor which was there before it was moved to the secret chamber would have been gazing directly at the Pleiades. The niche is offset southward from the center of the chamber because the statue was actually gazing at Merope. That's why I believe the secret chamber is at the position of Merope.

http://i47.tinypic.com/15ribcy.png

This image shows how Merope is right in the middle of the niche when Alcyone is positioned at the peak of the ceiling of the chamber. So this is a second correlation using the Pleiades in a different way right within the chamber itself. It tells us that the statue of Hathor (along with Khufu's mummy) is at the position of Merope in the secret chamber below. How the chamber is accessed I don't know. Perhaps from the subterranean chamber somehow, a well concealed secret entrance. I had to reverse the diagram so that the niche would be facing West as it is in reality. The diagram was a view facing East originally.

Incidentally, the Pleiades were on the horizon, exactly as they are on the pyramid base in the above image, in the year 2900 BC. In the standard chronology the pyramid is said to have been built around 2500-2600 BC. If the pyramid base was meant to represent the horizon then the pyramid is older than previously believed. By 2600 BC the Pleiades were up a little distance from the horizon when Alcyone was due West. Since I can't be certain that the Egyptians were trying to exactly depict the Pleiades when on the horizon, the pyramid could still have been built after 2900 BC. It could not, however, have been built prior to 2997 BC.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2hgqlhc.png

Garuda
01-07-2013, 02:54 PM
Welcome aboard, Rigel.

That's quite an interesting (first) post.

I'm looking forward to reading more.

Chris
01-07-2013, 03:01 PM
Very interesting, Rigel! Welcome!

Are you familiar with the works of Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval or Christopher Dunn?

Garuda
01-07-2013, 03:05 PM
Very interesting, Rigel! Welcome!

Are you familiar with the works of Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval or Christopher Dunn?

and while we're at it: or with Wayne Herschel's Hidden Records (www.thehiddenrecords.com)

Rigel
01-07-2013, 07:56 PM
I am quite familiar with Hancock and Bauval's work. It is completely different from my stuff though. I don't believe in the "lost civilization" theory which postulates a highly developed people in the Giza region around 10,000 BC. I haven't found anything to support that.

Regarding the Orion Correlation Theory, I don't think that's the explanation for the pyramid positions. I have some images showing my explanation for the positions and it also involves the Pleiades. However it does not employ three stars at the same time, rather it uses two stars, Taygeta and Celaeno, for the two large pyramids. The 3rd pyramid, in my theory, was positioned in another way. I believe it was positioned to depict Atlas when Alcyone was due East, rather than due West. with Alcyone keyed to the 2nd pyramid. This is more complicated than the simple "look up in the sky and find three stars that resemble the pyramids" approach. In the below image Alcyone is again due West. As you can see in both images, these matches are extremely precise, unlike the Orion match which is really not accurate at all.

http://i45.tinypic.com/11lhc9i.png

Here Alcyone is due East and keyed to the 2nd pyramid. As I said in the first post, although only two stars are involved in these match-ups their positions are not arbitrarily set by me but are dictated by the due East position of Alcyone. They could have easily determined due East and West simply using the sun, then they would have set up indicators so they wouldn't have to keep determining it over and over again. So they would simply have waited for Alcyone to be right at the indicator marks and they would then have known that it was due East or West. They would then have made drawings of the Pleiades star positions and used the drawings to layout the Giza pyramid positions.

Actually, something I just noticed which escaped my notice before is that Merope is right in front of the Great Pyramid in this image and right at its extended centerline. That looks awfully precise to be a coincidence. Merope seems to be important in this whole scenario so what do you think the odds are of some kind of chamber being underground at that point?

http://i49.tinypic.com/b8rbro.png

I may as well include this new image I made showing the Pleiades when Taygeta was on the horizon at the time when Alcyone was due West. It turned out to be 2944 BC. I turned the sky white so that the "local horizon" line would show up clearly.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2niz2hy.png

Rigel
01-07-2013, 08:32 PM
Well well, what have we here? Yup, NOW I'd say there's a good chance of a secret chamber there. Maybe it's not inside the pyramid at all, but at the end of a tunnel starting from somewhere in the pyramid and ending there. That may be what the QC niche/Merope match-up is about, or maybe there are two separate chambers, one inside and one out. Another possibility is that Khufu is in the chamber inside the Great Pyramid and Khafre and Menkaure are in that outside chamber. That would explain why there is a second type of Pleiades correlation involving Khafre's and Menkaure's pyramids than the one fist one I showed which involved the two large pyramids. Looks like the tunnel is probably from Khafre's Pyramid, starting at the center and following the blue line to the center of that hexagram. That's why Khafre's Pyramid is so simplistic on the inside and just has the one chamber at the center of the base. There's probably a secret entrance in one of the walls of that chamber, or beneath its floor.

This is fun solving Giza on the fly, don't you think? You guys are the first ones on earth to see this, after myself of course. How did I figure that out about the hexagram? I wanted to see what the angle was between the pyramid base and Merope. Looked like it might be 45 degrees or something. So I put the image into my autoCAD program and determined the angle. It turned out to be a little under 41 degrees. I happened to have been working with hexagonal geometry quite a bit over the years so I recognized the angle as the angle of a line drawn diagonally across the corners of a rectangle made of two triangles like that. I just drew the hexagram in but it may just be the two triangles and the rectangle which were the basis for the design, I don't know. The point of that larger triangle I made, which goes to the Sphinx and central small pyramid to the right of the Great Pyramid, points right to the Northeast corner of Khafre's Pyramid. Maybe that's where the tunnel starts, under that corner. Anyway, it's rather obvious by now that the Pleiades really are the key to the whole thing.

http://i47.tinypic.com/9rn8f5.png

CasperParks
01-07-2013, 10:39 PM
Rigel,

Welcome to The Outpost Forms.

Enjoyed skimming your post, research is important. You may find 19.5 an interesting number when it comes to pyramids.

Stay within the cycle of all,

Casper Parks

Rigel
01-07-2013, 10:53 PM
Rigel,

Welcome to The Outpost Forms.

Enjoyed skimming your post, research is important. You may find 19.5 an interesting number when it comes to pyramids.

Stay within the cycle of all,

Casper Parks

Thanks for reading my posts. What is the significance of the 19.5, anything to do with a star tetrahedron inside a sphere?

Rigel
01-07-2013, 11:20 PM
Caspar, I just checked some angles in my CAD drawing and found something quite remarkable. Could be coincidental but still an interesting coincidence. The angle of the tilt of the earth's axis is said to be about 23.439 degrees. If I split that long triangle which had a corner at the Sphinx into two halves by drawing a horizontal line from its point at the left to the middle of its vertical edge at the right then the two right triangles have an angle of 23.4132244° at the left point. Pretty amazing that simple triangular/hexagonal geometry can produce such a close approximation to the earth's tilt angle.

Uh oh, look what happened when I drew a 3 point circle around the triangle. Look at the center of the Great Pyramid. This is getting scary now. I don't think we're supposed to know about this.

http://i50.tinypic.com/zl2js.png

CasperParks
01-08-2013, 03:43 AM
Take a pyramid and point the top at South Pole, the two other ends line up with larges volcanos on the planet at 19.5 degrees, and same with every planet in the solar system except for Saturn. This information has been around for a long time, however is not often discussed anymore.

Computers make it easier to examine measurements and astrological line-ups of ancient structures.

Rigel
01-08-2013, 02:50 PM
Take a pyramid and point the top at South Pole, the two other ends line up with larges volcanos on the planet at 19.5 degrees, and same with every planet in the solar system except for Saturn. This information has been around for a long time, however is not often discussed anymore.

Computers make it easier to examine measurements and astrological line-ups of ancient structures.

I see I see. Yeah I did read about there being a lot of volcanoes at those parts of the earth.

About the last few images I posted, I made a much more accurate Giza diagram using CAD and Petrie's actual survey coordinates and it turns out that the match-ups are not as accurate as they appeared in that crude diagram I used before. So I'm dropping the whole Giza groundplan Pleiades connection theory. I now believe that the positions were dictated by purely geometric factors, as people like John Legon have theorized. However, the correlation between the Great Pyramid chambers and the Pleiades is still completely valid, since that was an accurate CAD drawing of the pyramid.

Oh well, solving that alone and identifying the probable location of a 3rd secret chamber within the pyramid is sufficient. No need to complicate matters further by attempting to explain the groundplan too. BTW, that whole hexagram thing was also way inaccurate in the CAD Giza drawing so that's out now too. Now it's a nice simple solving of the Great Pyramid chambers and the mystery of where Khufu's mummy and the Hathor statue are.

Rigel
01-08-2013, 06:40 PM
I made my own CAD image of the Great Pyramid chambers. It's exact, based on Petrie's data. I really don't think anyone will ever be able to get a closer match between the chambers and anything else that could credibly be linked to the Egyptians like the Pleiades can.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2upzll3.png

Rigel
01-08-2013, 08:41 PM
There is actually evidence of secret passages in the Great Pyramid. See http://www.talkingpyramids.com/two-secret-pyramid-chambers-revealed/ Where do the passages go? Must be another chamber.

Rigel
01-08-2013, 11:55 PM
I found Jean-Pierre Houdin's email address and sent him a message and images. Things should start heating up soon. Houdin will crap his pants when he sees that.

Rigel
01-10-2013, 08:08 PM
Never did get a reply from Houdin. Maybe it's an old email address or something. Anyway, there appears to be some evidence of anomalies under the antechamber, which I suspect is where a vertical shaft existed for accessing the tomb chamber.


While the SRI team did not further investigate the superstructure of Khafre's Pyramid, believing that such would be redundant after the Joint Pyramid Project, they did spend a single night using the acoustic soundings to survey a limited area of the Great Pyramid of Khufu. They took two sets of data, one from the King's Chamber and another from the antechamber leading to it. Even here, there were problems due to the blocks making up the pyramids core returning multiple waves back to the receiving equipment, therefore causing "clutter". Nevertheless, the survey did appear to reveal an anomalous echo 7.25 meters beneath the floor, about halfway between the King's and Queen's Chambers.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/secretchambers2.htm

They identified a possible void about 20 feet down. They wouldn't have identified the full shaft because it was most likely filled in with stone debris, which may be why they got a "clutter" signal back. The void is probably a small side chamber in the shaft used for resting or holding supplies while the shaft was being made.

Rigel
01-10-2013, 09:57 PM
I think this might be the correct way to match the Pleiades to the Great Pyramid and Khafre's Pyramid. Yo have to put Electra, the star matching the Great Pyramid due West. Electra is a little brighter than Merope like the Great Pyramid is a little larger than Khafre's Pyramid. You also have to view Giza looking westward. The 3rd pyramid is not involved, that's why it's so much smaller. It's positioned based one geometry.

http://i47.tinypic.com/9urqzm.png

CasperParks
01-11-2013, 09:11 AM
Use the foot system when measuring and connecting the dots, do not use metric.

Rigel
01-12-2013, 01:28 AM
There's no measurements involved in this, but I know what you're getting at. The Romans got their foot from the Egyptians and then the Brits got theirs from the Romans. It's all interrelated.

Since we're on the subject of metrology, here's something I did some time ago. It shows how the Jewish sacred cubit and the common cubit were derived geometrically from the Nippur Cubit, the oldest cubit of them all. The square part of this may be why the Jews made the Holy of Holies cubic. Also because of the interesting fact that a cube with sides of 20 Sacred Cubits would have a cross-corner inside diagonal of exactly 42 Royal cubits. I don't know if there was any significance to the number 42 but that's what it comes out to. You could say that a cube with sides of a certain number of Sacred Cubits has a diagonal which is 2 and 1/10th times that in Royal Cubits. See how it's all interconnected?

http://i47.tinypic.com/538sag.jpg

As for the Royal Cubit, I'll have to explain that verbally. I wrote this a while ago. I'll copy paste the whole thing here. Glad I wrote this down and made that image because I never would have remembered this. Sometimes I solve stuff and then forget how I did it.


Here's how the royal cubit really originated. They took a Nippur cubit and divided it into 28 instead of the normal 30 fingers. That 1/28th of a Nippur cubit then became the Egyptian finger (or digit). Simple as that. 40 of those fingers made the diagonal of a royal cubit square. That's why Petrie found that the Egyptian digit was not evenly divisble into a royal cubit. He correctly deduced that it was 1/40th of the diagonal of a royal cubit square but he still didn't know where it originally came from.

So there is the true origin of the royal cubit. Since the Nippur cubit was 518.5 mm in 2650 BC, known because a copper alloy Nippur cubit rod was found, we know that 1/28th of that would be 18.51785714 mm. Multiplying that by 40 yields 740.7142857, dividing that by sqrt 2 gives the side of the square as 523.7640944 mm, which converts to 20.62063364 inches. This, then, was the true length of the Egyptian royal cubit in the 4th Dynasty. The mean side length of the GP is 9068.8 inches, which would be 439.7924991 true royal cubits.

Here's a quote from Petrie;

"As I have already pointed out (Ind. Met., p. 56), the cubit and digit have no integral relation one to the other; the connection of 28 digits with the cubit being certainly inexact, and merely adopted to avoid fractions. Now these earliest values of the cubit and digit entirely bear out this view; 28 of these digits of .727 is but 20.36 ± .06, in place of the actual cubit 20.62 ± .01. Is there then any simple connection between the digit and cubit? Considering how in the Great Pyramid, the earliest monument in which the cubit is yet found, so much of the design appears to be based on a relation of the squares of linear quantities to one another, or on diagonals of squares, it will not be impossible to entertain the theory of the cubit and digit being reciprocally connected by diagonals.

A square cubit has a diagonal of 40 digits, or 20 digits squared has a diagonal of one cubit; thus a square cubit is the double of a square of 20 digits, so that halves of areas can be readily stated. This relation is true to well within the small uncertainties of our knowledge of the standards; the diagonal of a square cubit of 20.62 being 40 digits of .729, and the actual mean digit being .727 ± .002. This is certainly the only simple connection that can be traced between the cubit and digit; and if this be rejected, we must fall back on the supposition of two independent and incommensurable units." http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c20.html#140

Rigel
01-12-2013, 04:47 PM
This shows the Holy of Holies of Solomon's Temple.

http://i47.tinypic.com/eulftc.png

The number 42 has these significances in Judaism;

Letters in one of God's Divine Names

Number of lines of text written in each column of a Torah scroll


"This is one of God's many names, mentioned in the Zohar and in the writings of Rabbi Moshe Cordoviro and Rabbi Abraham Abulafia next to the 72 fold name of God. In the Zohar, the 72 fold name of God and the 42 letters name of God are often discussed together, and described as a complementary.

An interesting reference is in the Zohar on the last chapters of Exodos, where the breastpiece, the Hoshen, is discussed along with the Urim and Thummim. The breastpiece is said to be engraved with the 42 letters name of god and embossed with the names of the 12 tribes, with the 42 letters name of God causing light or darkness to appear in the letters spelling the tribe names." [www.tarot.org.il]

And this, which also has a reference to the number 21, which would be the number of RC across the inner corners of the Tabernacle, a 10 Sacred Cubit square tent used for "the presences" before the temple was built ;


"Early commentators say that the forty-two letters are a combination of the first forty-two letters of the Torah. The Name may also be associated with the phrase God used to reply to Moses, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh", ("I Am that I Am"), which comes out to 42 in gematria (doubling the value of the Name Ehyeh, which equals 21 in Hebrew numerology.)" [www.yashanet.com]

Rigel
01-13-2013, 03:55 AM
I forgot to mention that the length of the Sacred Cubit was very slightly over 25 inches, as Isaac Newton reported. Using the Royal Cubit length produced from the Nippur Cubit as I explained earlier, and using the cubic geometry shown in my last post, I found that the Sacred Cubit of the Hebrews was precisely 25.00118961 British inches.

Rigel
01-13-2013, 12:52 PM
Hey, I just noticed something cool. That first image I showed, involving the Nippur Cubit, resulted in a Sacred Cubit length which is almost exactly the same as the Sacred Cubit length produced in my much later (like a couple days ago) Holy of Holies image. I did that Nippur Cubit drawing probably a year or so ago. There is only one decimal place which differs in the Sacred Cubit lengths produced. Wow. I actually astonished MYSELF with that. Guess there must really be something to both of those theories. The 7th decimal place was an 8 in one and a 6 in the other. Aside from that, exact same decimal number. Holy crap that's accurate. That must mean that my Royal Cubit derivation theory, involving the digit being 1/28th of a Nippur Cubit must be correct.

Doc
01-13-2013, 05:49 PM
Welcome to The OutPost Forum, Rigel. That is an amazing amount of detail. What do you see as the significance of this? An emerging theory? Support for other theories or debunking them? Something new entirely?

Rigel
01-13-2013, 09:49 PM
Use the foot system when measuring and connecting the dots, do not use metric.

Here's something that's pretty weird and which may be of interest to those who theorize a connection between the Egyptians and the British inch and/or foot.

I was trying to find a direct geometric way of deriving the Royal Cubit from the NIppur Cubit and I happened onto this. I don't know what, if anything, it means but that red square is exactly 10 British inches and all of the other units are exact cubit lengths. May be a coincidence but an awfully precise one.

http://i49.tinypic.com/wocbp.png

CasperParks
01-13-2013, 10:29 PM
Here's something that's pretty weird and which may be of interest to those who theorize a connection between the Egyptians and the British inch and/or foot.

I was trying to find a direct geometric way of deriving the Royal Cubit from the NIppur Cubit and I happened onto this. I don't know what, if anything, it means but that red square is exactly 10 British inches and all of the other units are exact cubit lengths. May be a coincidence but an awfully precise one.

http://i49.tinypic.com/wocbp.png

As a child, I heard adults objecting to the new math system and that it obstructed history.

Rigel
01-14-2013, 05:32 PM
Welcome to The OutPost Forum, Rigel. That is an amazing amount of detail. What do you see as the significance of this? An emerging theory? Support for other theories or debunking them? Something new entirely?

It appears to me that the Sacred Cubit came first, being 1/10,000,000th of the earth's polar radius within a few miles, and that the other cubits were derived from that original one geometrically. Who originally made the Sacred Cubit is unknown to me however. Since the Nippur Cubit is the earliest known cubit which has this geometric relationship to the Sacred Cubit, I'm guessing that it was the Sumerians, the earliest civilization known and where Nippur was located. The Nippur Cubit is also known as the Sumerian Cubit. I found this about Nippur in wikipedia;


Nippur (Sumerian: Nibru, often logographically recorded as EN.LÍLKI, "Enlil City;"[1] Akkadian: Nibbur) was one of the most ancient of all the Sumerian cities.[citation needed] It was the special seat of the worship of the Sumerian god Enlil, the "Lord Wind," ruler of the cosmos subject to An alone. Nippur was located in modern Nuffar in Afak, Al-Qādisiyyah Governorate, Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippur

So it appears that among the unexplained knowledge available to the Sumerians, the size of the earth was one of them. How did the Hebrews get the Sacred Cubit though? Abraham is said to have come from Ur, another Sumerian city. Though the existence of a historic Abraham is debatable it is nonetheless curious that the location Ur was mentioned by the Hebrews as a significant location in regard to their ancestors. It seems to me that they must have got the Sacred Cubit directly from Sumeria at some point in the remote past. Oddly, there is no known use of the 25" Sacred Cubit in Sumeria that I could find.

Rigel
01-15-2013, 02:39 AM
I forgot to include the label for the Egyptian short cubit in the last image. Wouldn't be complete without that. Four different cubits and the British inch all precisely interrelated. Surprising that nobody ever noticed that the Sacred Cubit was simply the diagonal of an Egyptian short cubit square, huh? I did a google search and couldn't find one other mention of that anywhere.

BTW, if anyone does a cubit related search they may see my posts in the unexplained mysteries forum. I'm the same person. Don't want anyone to think I lifted material or anything. Everything I do is 100% original. You might also find some of my stuff from an "Arcadia" forum in the Egypt section. That stuff was long ago. I've been working on Giza related mysteries for several years. I've dropped more theories than I can count because I later found better ones. You always think you solved Giza until you find something even better than what you had before. How am I going to find something better than the absolutely perfect matching of the Pleiades and the Great Pyramid chambers though? That's how I know it must be the real answer to that particular facet of Giza, because it's impossible to find anything better. Once you reach the point of sheer perfection there's really nowhere else to go after that. There's nothing else due West or due East that matches those chambers anyway so the Pleiades has to be it. The Queen's Chamber is right on the central axis of the pyramid so the chambers must represent something due West or due East, the statue niche facing West makes it a virtual certainty that it must be something in the Western sky.

Also, I didn't really answer Doc's question that he asked about what I see this as. It would be in the "something new entirely" category. I'm not debunking anything because there are no other theories out there to explain the chamber positions of the Great Pyramid. Regarding the cubits stuff, that's also entirely new stuff, some of it done at an earlier time by me. The thing with the triangle was done a while ago. The Holy of Holies thing is new, circa a few days ago, and so is the British inches and RC part of it. I guess you could call all of this stuff "emerging theories", in that I generally make additions or revisions to them as I discover new things that are related, like the British inches thing. I happened to have a couple weeks off work during the holiday season so I was occupying myself by doing more work on these things. Turned out to be rather fruitful.

http://i49.tinypic.com/hx2pzq.png

Rigel
01-15-2013, 06:04 PM
I just solved how the Queen's Chamber Niche was positioned.

http://i46.tinypic.com/bgcjgi.png

Rigel
01-15-2013, 06:59 PM
Here's the final version.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2rrqf14.png

Rigel
01-15-2013, 08:07 PM
Final version, explaining both the height and vertical axis position.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2rrqf14.png

Rigel
01-16-2013, 12:18 AM
Guess I posted the same thing on here twice. Must have forgot I posted it already here. Anyway, here's a new thing I found. This explains why the RC was divided into 7 palms. Fate has it that the hypotenuse of a 1:7 right triangle is exactly half of sqrt 2 x 10, and a 2:14 triangle would have hypotenuse of exactly sqrt 2 x 10. To get sqrt 2 x 5 in RC all you need do is make a right triangle with sides of 2 RC and 2 palms. That would be the diagonal of a 25 square RC area.

Also, compare this image to these words from Exodus;

36:9 The length of one curtain was twenty and eight cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: the curtains were all of one size.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2wmp9x4.png

Rigel
01-16-2013, 01:04 AM
In that image it should have said sqrt 2 x 10.

Rigel
01-29-2013, 01:33 AM
I have made a small revision in my Great Pyramid Pleiades theory. I now think it is more probable that the stars Atlas and Alcyone were represented by the chamber positions when Atlas was due West, rather than Alcyone. The matching is as precise or maybe slightly better. In this case, the due West grid line (gray) is seen to be perfectly aligned to the South wall of the subterranean chamber. It also seems more likely for the King's Chamber to have been intended to be at the due West position, since that's where the coffer is. It may seem a little counter-intuitive for the pyramid's central axis not to represent due West but I think overall that the King's Chamber wins out as being at that position.

I also now think that the 3rd chamber, with Khufu's mummy, is more likely to be at the position of Electra than Merope. Electra is the 3rd brightest star and on a similar slanted line from the King's Chamber as the Queen's Chamber is. It's also deeper in the bedrock.

http://i46.tinypic.com/35bs1lw.jpg

http://i50.tinypic.com/2ltfzfs.png

Rigel
01-29-2013, 02:46 AM
Actually, come to think of it, since the Electra /Great Pyramid/Merope/Khafre/Pyramid match turned out best with Electra due West, maybe I should try it like that with the chambers. Here's how it would look. Hard to say where exactly the due West line should be placed in the pyramid. I guess it's not really important since all of the stars are still in virtually the exact same positions anyway. Could take your pick really. Those stars don't change that much because the asterism is so small that it's not really moving very far at all depending which star is due West.

One thing that may be in the favor of this particular positioning is that the stars are higher in the sky than in the other two versions. There is a phenomenon known as "atmospheric extinction" which make stars harder to see as they get closer to the horizon, due to more air being between the viewer and the stars. So the stars would appear brightest with this positioning scheme, though it's hard to say whether the difference would actually be noticeable.

In this case Electra is at 3°44.5' altitude. At 4° a star's apparent magnitude is reduced by 2. Since apparent magnitude is inverse to the highness of the number, Electra would go from 3.71 to about 5.71. When a star is at Apparent magnitude 6 it becomes very difficult to see with the naked eye. So Electra should still be just visible at that height. With Atlas due West Electra would be down to 3° 3.371' so it would be considerably dimmer. With Alcyone due West Electra would be at 3° 24.153'. So with visibility considered, Electra due West would be the best candidate for the true positioning scheme.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2lcxpvr.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/2qntypw.png

Rigel
01-29-2013, 02:49 PM
I have noticed that the 270° line is equidistant from the pyramid axis with the South wall of the King's Chamber. I think this must be the real positioning scheme of the Pleiades in the sky, with Electra due West.

Doc
01-29-2013, 06:01 PM
I am finding all this detail and analysis fascinating. I wonder what kind of conclusions you are drawing from it? Is this going in the direction of attempting to prove a theory or is it study for the sake of knowing more?

Rigel
01-29-2013, 10:19 PM
I am finding all this detail and analysis fascinating. I wonder what kind of conclusions you are drawing from it? Is this going in the direction of attempting to prove a theory or is it study for the sake of knowing more?

It's just me discovering things related to the Great Pyramid and as I discover things I tweek my theory to account for them. I had no preconceived conclusion to try to work toward. I just find my path as I come upon the road signs, you might say. It's just something to keep me occupied because I have a seasonal job with lots of down time in the winter and have to do something to keep my mind stimulated. I find it exciting to find new things about such an ancient and fascinating mystery as the Giza pyramids. I like to post things as they develop as sort a record of it. I don't know where it's going to go any more than viewers do, but in the end it should be an interesting thread.

I also post it in some other forums so you may see the same things if you happen to be doing a google search about the pyramids and the Pleiades. Each forum has a very limited viewership so I try to put things on at least two different ones. Some of them ban me because I get irritated by some posters who make inane comments. For instance I just got banned from the Hall of Maat forum yesterday. Those were irritating people on there. They'll pretty much ban anyone whose opinions differ from those the mod and regulars. They just wait for the slightest excuse to ban people. Banned me with no warning whatsoever. Very professional, huh? I sure won't miss that forum.

Here's my latest addition which I put on one other forum, the "Paracast Community Forums". That's the only other one I'm posting on right now. No irritating people on either of these two forums so far, thankfully;

Here's an interesting thing I found which may strengthen the case for Electra being due West when Atlas and Alcyone were depicted by the chambers. The full length of the Grand Gallery is known to be 88 Royal Cubits. The 270° line appears to be 60 cubits up the gallery from the bottom end. That would leave 28 cubits above it. The gallery has 28 notches and the pyramid height is 280 cubits so this seems suspicious to me. Is there some kind of secret entrance to a vertical shaft to the 3rd chamber at that point in the gallery? Probably, yeah.

Incidentally, I just did a quick calculation of 88 divided by 28 and of course it comes out to a fractional approximation of pi, since 88 is 4 x 22 and 28 is 4 x 7, 22/7 being 3.142857143. Guess that explains the 88 cubit length being divided up into 28 steps or notches. The position of the 270° line would split the gallery into 28 and 60 cubits, a ratio of 1 to 2.142857143, which is the 22/7 form of pi with 1 added. The secret shaft entrance should be at or near the 19th notch upward in the gallery.

Observe, if you will, the fact that the Grand Gallery floor is actually made up of large stone blocks placed between the walls. It looks like two layers of thinner blocks, one on top the other. The blocks at the 60 cubit point could easily be sealing off the shaft to the 3rd chamber. Now there are coverings over the floor with step type things in them so people can walk up. Nobody has even explored the possibility of a shaft under the floor blocks yet. How could they when huge blocks are over it, which must have been slid down from above like the plug blocks at the lower end of the gallery.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2vkj5zq.jpg

CasperParks
01-29-2013, 10:40 PM
Something we don’t hear much about as of late, those hidden chambers under the Sphinx.

Rigel
01-30-2013, 12:24 AM
Something we don’t hear much about as of late, those hidden chambers under the Sphinx.

Yeah, guess people got tired of that one. Can't say that I have anything supporting that. I do think that there must be another chamber in the Great Pyramid though. Where else would the mummy be?

Herodotus wrote about there supposedly being a tomb chamber for Khufu under the Great Pyramid which had water funneled into it from the Nile so that the coffer was on an island of sorts. I researched it a little and it appeared to me that the subterranean chamber was just about the right level for Nile water to be able to flow into it, though there were obviously no channels leading water in when it was entered in middle ages times. Could be another chamber at the same depth though, but somewhere lateral from the Subterranean chamber.

My current theory is that the tomb chamber is up a little higher though, at Electra's position. Maybe they changed the plan and that's why the sub chamber was not completed. That pit in the floor may have been the first part of the conduit that was meant to bring Nile water in, just that they stopped digging and changed the plan, for whatever reason. The story Herodotus heard may have been just the story of the original plan. I guess it's possible that there was some sort of complex system to use the power of the Nile water to somehow raise water to the level of Electra's position, which is only about 23 cubits below ground level whereas the Nile flood level would only have got to about 50-60 cubits below ground level, from my estimation.

Rigel
01-31-2013, 06:40 PM
Here's something I did a little while ago and didn't post on here yet. It's my theory for how the heights of Khafre and Menkaure pyramids were derived geometrically from the Great Pyramid's height. As is known, Khafre's pyramid is not a perfect 3,4,5 pyramid, nor is Menkaure's pyramid a perfect pi pyramid like the Great Pyramid (actually a 289/92 pyramid).

Nobody has previously explained why the heights were made such that the slopes do not correspond to perfect seked values or the ratios I mentioned. For instance, you'll find the seked of 5.25 (palms to 7 palms, being 1 cubit). However, that produces a slope angle of 53° 7' 48.368". The problem is that this is not the actual measured slope angle. From Petrie;


For the angle of slope of the faces, the direct rneasures by goniometer and level on the granite in situ gave 53º 12' ± 2', but by measurement from plumb line 53º 2'; the block has been slightly shifted, but the top surface only varies 1' from level, being high on the outer edge. By goniometer measures of [p. 98] 24 blocks, both of granite and limestone, lying around the Pyramid, the mean is 53º 14' ± 5'; and though this involves the assumption of horizontal courses, if this be taken as the angle of slope, yet it agrees so closely with the casing in that probably 53º 10' ± 4' will be the best statement.
http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c8.html#67


The procedure shown in this image produces a slope of 53° 11' 11.39", which is much closer to the actual angle from the casing stones. How did they actually measure out that slope angle if they couldn't use the 5.25 seked? I suppose they just used the same procedure as shown in the image, making a set square with that exact angle. No way to know exactly, but we do know that they did not use the 5.25 seked.

http://i46.tinypic.com/i4eiat.png

Rigel
02-03-2013, 10:11 PM
Here's an exciting new find. The star Pleione in the Pleiades is rather dim in relation to the seven major stars. It is, nonetheless, and important star because of its close proximity to Atlas. It is generally seen as the consort of Atlas, his wife in the Greek myths. I suspect that it was likened to Hathor by the Egyptians, since Menkaure is shown in a statue with Hathor at his side and this star falls on his pyramid. So we have Hathor herself represented by Pleione and the "Seven Hathors", the herd of cows which nourish the dead with their milk, represented by the other seven bright stars. The dimness of Pleione would be the reason for the smaller size of Menkaure's Pyramid.

An interesting thing about this scenario is that the Sphinx is involved, being the positioning reference by placing Electra between its forelegs. So the Sphinx has finally been tied into the Pleiades correlations. This was far from obvious, which is why it took me considerably longer to identify this particular scheme than the one for the two larger pyramids. Again, the time depicted is when Electra was due West.

I should mention that I'm aware of the geometric relationships involved in the pyramid positions, such as the theories of John Legon, but those do not affect this scheme because it is the Sphinx which dictates the correlation, not either of the other two pyramids. It would have been the Sphinx which was positioned in such a way as to make this correlation with Menkaure's Pyramid possible and Legon's theory does not account for the position of the Sphinx.

http://i49.tinypic.com/70zyhx.png

southerncross
02-03-2013, 11:15 PM
I don't believe a mummy resides in the Great Pyramid. Just my opinion, but there is not one funerary drawing, incantation, or tribute painted or carved for the dead Pharoah. It's chambers and corridors should be filled with the temple arts to insure the Pharoahs successful maneuvering through the land of the dead and weighing of the heart.
There should be temple arts still there and yet the walls are bare.

Rigel
02-04-2013, 12:38 AM
I don't believe a mummy resides in the Great Pyramid. Just my opinion, but there is not one funerary drawing, incantation, or tribute painted or carved for the dead Pharoah. It's chambers and corridors should be filled with the temple arts to insure the Pharoahs successful maneuvering through the land of the dead and weighing of the heart.
There should be temple arts still there and yet the walls are bare.

That is exactly what tells me that there is another secret chamber. That would be where all the magical pyramid texts would be. There would be no need for them in the two upper chambers, since neither of those were the tomb chamber. I believe that the coffer in the upper chamber was intended as a ploy to make would-be tomb raiders think that the tomb had already been robbed. A lot of tombs were being robbed in those days, which is why the pyramids were required. A decoy tomb chamber would be one strategy designed to avoid that.

As for the location of the other two Giza kings' mummies, hard to say. Maybe similar secret chambers in their own pyramids or maybe a communal tomb in the Great Pyramid which was still accessible by certain trusted priests even after Khufu himself had been entombed there. It's possible that Khafre is in a separate chamber in the Great Pyramid at the position of Merope, since his pyramid corresponds to Merope when the Great Pyramid is matched to Electra.

Menkaure may be entombed in a chamber in front of the Sphinx below the ground at the position of Electra in the last image I posted. That would explain the link between those two positions. We don't really know who built the Sphinx, maybe it was Menkaure. His pyramid is rather modest after all, so you would expect another significant structure to also be attributable to him. Could be his face on the Sphinx.

southerncross
02-04-2013, 01:02 AM
And it's entirely possible that the pyramid is far older. The people inhabiting the SW Egyptian desert had a sacred place called Nabta Playa which one astrophysicist, Dr Thomas Brophy, calculated by its alignments to the stars and its ability to calculate distances from one star to another (paralaxes) established Nabta Playa to be approximately 18,000 yrs old. Now these were not your everyday herdsmen. Lol. The mathematical calculations published by Brophy are staggering in their accuracy.

Further there is the story of Werner Von Siemens
Sir W. Siemens, the British inventor, related that one day while he was standing on the summit of Great pyramid an Arab guide called his attention to the fact that whenever he raised his hand with his fingers outspread an acute ringing noise was heard.

Raising just his index, Siemens felt a distinct prickling in it. When he tried to drink from a wine bottle he had brought along he noted a slight electric shock. So Siemens moistened a newspaper and wrapped it around the bottle to convert it into a Leyden jar. It became increasingly charged with electricity simply by being held above his head.

When sparks began to issue from the wine bottle, Siemens's Arab guides became distrustful and accused him of practicing witchcraft. One of the guides tried to seize Siemens's companion, but Siemens lowered the bottle towards him and gave the Guide such a jolt that he was knocked senseless to the ground. Recovering, the guide scrambled to his feet and took off down the Pyramid, crying loudly.

While there may be another chamber and it may well contain the body of a Pharaoh, it's very possible the pyramid is a machine capable of producing subtle energy and it was used as a burial in a later age. The age of the Pyramid may surprise us all. I believe it goes back at least 10 to 13,000 yrs. but, that's just my humble opinion.
I look forward to reading more of your work.

Rigel
02-04-2013, 01:54 AM
Here we have evidence that the Sphinx may indeed depict the face of Menkaure. This is the face from a huge statue of Menkaure at the Boston Museum http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/articles/jaic42-02-004.html.

The Sphinx could easily be him. The fact that it's in front of the central pyramid means little. The Sphinx Temple is a separate temple from Khafre's Valley Temple and appears to have been built after it. It was suddenly halted during construction, just like Menkaure's Pyramid. The casing stones on Menkaure's Pyramid weren't even smoothed off completely. All construction ceased when Menkaure died unexpectedly. The Sphinx Temple is the same, construction suddenly ceased and blocks were abandoned where they were, on their way to the temple. The Sphinx Temple could not have been built by Khafre in my opinion. If Khafre had started the temple then Menkaure would have completed it. When Menkaure died suddenly, there was nobody left to complete it.

Look at the facial structure. They're identical, the wide square jaw, the flat cheeks, the widely spaced eyes. Khafre's eyes are closer than that and he always had a falcon on the back of his head in statues. His mouth looks a little thinner but that may be due to the seam in the Sphinx's face in that area and also the wear. That same artist probably designed both the statue and the Sphinx head as a matching pair, giant statue, giant Sphinx. Without that statue we may never have figured it out for sure. The Sphinx is Menkaure, positively identified for the first time. That was an unexpected twist, wasn't it? I told you this thread might get interesting by the time I'm done.

http://i49.tinypic.com/97qk41.png

southerncross
02-04-2013, 03:50 AM
Well, I have a degree in Fine Art and a strong art history background. One aspect of the sphinx that's always made me pause for thought was the excellent proportion in the Egyptians work. They were meticulous in measurement. Indeed if you measure each side of the Sphinx's face the variance between each side iwhen compared is very little. So, it is distinctly out of the norm for the Sphinx's head to be proportionately so small in relation to the body. There are many many sphinxes that line the roads to temples. All beautifully proportioned.

It has been proposed that the Sphinx supported a larger head and was resculpted in a later time. The Egyptians were notorious for taking the blocks of temples to the old Pharaohs and building temples to the new. It was a way for the new Pharaoh to establish his greatness and continued line of leadership.

Many points to consider. I am not convinced it was originally contemporary to Menkarure, but may be reclaimed to serve the Pharaoh. But that's the fun of studying this. So many possibilities and we all come to our own conclusions.

Rigel
02-04-2013, 01:58 PM
No, the pyramids are 4th Dynasty. They would be much more eroded otherwise and the Great Pyramid has similar design features as the Dahshur pyramids and those ones have quarry marks on some of the stones dating them to Snefru's reign. Also, the Pleiades never got to due West before 2997 BC, due to precession. There's just nothing to support a super-ancient Giza theory and plenty to support a 4th Dynasty theory.

Regarding the small Sphinx head, it may simply have been for practical reasons. They took advantage of a natural outcropping and maybe the part that was used for the head wasn't any bigger than that, though it is of course possible that it was recarved at some point.

Something I just noticed is that in the image I posted before, which I will repost here for convenience, it shows some sort of mound at the position of Alcyone. It's conceivable that the actual tomb chambers of all three kings are at that point. It would make sense because Alcyone is the brightest star of the group and that does seem like a convenient spot for an underground chamber, not being in a quarry area or anything. I'll have to check and see if there is any sort of geometry which can link the pyramids or Sphinx to that spot.

http://i49.tinypic.com/70zyhx.png

CasperParks
02-05-2013, 12:31 PM
Rigel,

Thanks putting in time on this subject.

Rigel
02-06-2013, 04:18 PM
Rigel,
Thanks putting in time on this subject.

Yeah sure, somebody has to sort this Giza thing out, and looks like it's going to have to be me. I also like making cool images and I'm very exacting, unlike some others whom I won't name. I would never accept the inaccuracy of, say, the matching of the three Giza pyramids with the three stars of Orion's Belt. That is very inaccurate. Compare that with the stunning accuracy of this Pleiades match-up with the Sphinx and Menkaure's Pyramid. Electra is right dead in front of the Sphinx's face and Pleione dead center of the pyramid.

Now look how the line between two Pleiades stars goes right to Menkaure's valley temple courtyard.

http://i47.tinypic.com/30wphcl.png

Rigel
02-06-2013, 05:45 PM
I have developed the geometry further. Those triangles seem to hit a point which is similarly offset from center as the causeway's attachment point but toward the other side.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2qc32vr.png