Congratulations on your book. I will be ordering it as soon as I can. Some issues:
1) 23 degree encodings - Earth obliquity
2) Did Khufu erect the Great Pyramid?
3) Do the three Gizamids reflect Orion?
4) What's the best theory that explains the planning of the Gizamids - distance between them, angles, azimuths, size - base length & height, internal structure, shafts etc?
5) Do the satellite pyramids depict the belt stars - rising or setting at different time periods, an indication that the architects knew about precession?
6) Were the pyramids meant to be used as recovery vaults? Do they encode catastrophic events of the past or future?
7) Do the pyramids encode a change of the Earth axis? Is that what the shaft angles reflect?
1) My research into the ancient mysteries has lead me to believe that structures like the pyramids were erected by a very advanced civilization. Because of this the obliquity of the earth I might think is a trivial peice of information. A great deal of more advanced info was encoded. Thus it is perfectly logical that it has been encompassed in the pyramid design, along with the obliquity of other important planets. I thus will not be geting into the encoding of this angle in art etc. I just don't think it is so important.
2) I found your AOM article "In Search of Khufu", very interesting. I am currently writing a book on the ancient Hellenic alphabet , its evolution and where it came from - who designed it. I therefore find the possibility that some text instead of reading Khufu , read Raufu , very interesting. I have found indications that Raufu might in fact represent the individual that erected the pyramid. On the other hand though, I don't think that reading a different name means it does not refer to Khufu. These names are titles and each pharaoh had more than one - Horus name, Nebti name etc. It seems to me that Khufu is Raufu. In other words I don't consider this proof that the great pyramid was erected before the accepted time frame - circa 2550 BC
3) There is a symbolic relation between the Gizamids and Orion. They were not designed to perfectly depict the three belt stars - this is why both the relative distances and the angle are off. The reason is that they were designed to encode different things. One could be the Cygnus constellation - but as I have pointed out to Andrew, Cygnus also does not fit well. His azimuth correlations also do not work out - too great an error. I thus think , and I have evidence for this , that Cygnus is also symbolically encoded.
4) The only theory that explains with self consistency and no arbitrary assertions - how the Gizamids were planned - distance between them, angles, azimuths, size - base length & height, internal structure, shafts etc, is one I have come up with, and it is a planetary encoding. No geometric hocus pocus, or rough correlations. The designers were very advanced, the encoding accuracy is thus exceptional. I therefore believe that the Gizamids were built based on astronomic data , with a considerable parallel symbolic or actual Orion and to a lesser degree Cygnus data.
5) I think the idea that the satellite pyramids depict the belt stars - rising or setting at a specific time is an ingenious one. But I find some problems with the theory presented in the past on this board. First of all the alignment is between the outer pyramids(G1 & G3). This means that we are looking at which time period Alnitak and Mintaka set at the same time. But if we are stationed at Giza and check the dates, I did, then o we see that you are correct on the 10500 BC date, but the date when Mintaka, and Alnitak rise at the same azimuth(below the horizon) is not 2500 AD. Actually it is around 727 AD. But if the pyramids contained prophecies - knowledge of future catastrophic events - then they messed up. Nothing happened 727 AD. This means that there is something wrong with this theory. Also I checked the azimuth of Mintaka setting at 10500 BC and I found an error of 2 degrees in regards to your stated 212 relative Giza angle.
6) Based on the previous points is there any evidence that the axis of the Earth changed at 10500 BC or later on? Is there any geologic or archeological evidence for this? I don't know if you present this in your book. I think your precession encoding idea might be correct , but they encompassed it in a more complex way. You calibration time point seems wrong. At the same time another problem is that if we agree that these pyramids were erected by a very advanced civilization, wouldn't they have known that humans would have evolved quickly and reach a space technological age like we have reached - an age when maybe we don't need the pyramids as vaults - we can build miles beneath the Earth - and have to some unknown extent. So could these be symbolic recovery vaults - are they a symbol saying not "we are recovery vaults" but rather: "build recovery vaults right away!". Just some thoughts. Yesterday I took a look at the Orion rising and setting idea using my own viewing point and a special date I had previously and for different reasons computed. I saw two belt stars with equal azimuths, to a tenth of a thousandth of a degree!!! Very interesting stuff. I think it is possible that the pyramids were designed to record a catastrophic event, and that one might be eminent in the future. But I think we might not have to wait 500 years for it.
7) I have found strong indications that an axis shift of 4000 BC or so is not correct. I cannot rule out an axis shift at the Mesolithic age , although I have read nothing that proofs this. There are alternative explanations for the Queens Chamber shaft angles. Therefore due the absence of accuracy in the pole shift - QC shaft axis theory, at the moment it looks erroneous.
Post Edited (02-Feb-12 15:22)