Author of the Month :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world.

>>Re: "...its difficult for me to consider them a coincidence due to incorrect (I mean to a large degree) calculation on the part of SN."

--I don't follow what you mean. The different passageway measures you quote span a range of 0.38 degrees. My difference with Starry Night's obliquity calculation circa 12,000 BC is less than 0.3 degrees. Also as I explained in another post, the shaft itself has an angular spread greater than that.<<

I presented different sources , on the angle, but this does not mean that all of them have the same probability of being correct. I think the Petrie value that you used is the most accurate. I have trouble accepting Rutherfords value since for one thing he came up with a lot of “goofy” theories. So even my theoretic value might be a bit off.

This might be due an error on behalf of SN. I don’t agree on the validity of the idea of considering the angular spread. The only way this might have been incorporated is if they wanted to encode multiple alignments close to each other. I don’t believe that the GP or any part of it was manipulated at the time of Zep Tepi. So the angular spread is not so important, although I’m not sure it is meaningless. Its possible that we are both right. The only way to know is if I use the equations you used on my theory and see what the divergence is. I also took a look if the ascending passageway aligns with any star.

>>Re: "Using my theory I find a descending passageway alignment with SN of 26.417°."

--That is unclear what you are referring to. Do you mean that your theory, employing Starry Night calculations of a star declination, predicts the shaft under the Pyramid should have an angle of 26.417 degrees?<<

Yes.

>>And because that is close to the quoted shaft angles you think Starry Night values must be exact without error? What if Starry Night corrected their calculations (as they have in the past) by some small amount, say 0.2 degrees? Are you indicating that would prove your theory false?<<

The problem is that we don’t know the descending passageway angle with great accuracy. At least this is the feeling I have, so we cannot check the accuracy of any theory in regards to questionable accuracy of the angle. But if we have a theory that proves correct in certain circumstances, then in the case of other correlations of questionable accuracy, it is probably up to competitive theorists or an independent observer to debunk it.

>>And that said, I caution against any theories that depend on such extreme accuracy at such extremely ancient dates. Whether my method (Berger, 1976), or whatever calculation method Starry Night uses, there is still going to be a standard error range, which we haven't even talked about yet, and which may be significant. Look at the standard error in the Delta T calculation that Starry Night uses, from NASA, it only goes back to 500 BC and the standard error in that is getting increasingly large at that time. As I noted, of the monument-star comparisons of that extremely ancient epoch, that I quote in Black Genesis, this Vega-to-Shaft calculation is the only one that could be significantly affected by an error of 0.3 degrees or less, and in Black Genesis I noted caution about the value.<<

I believe that a very advanced civilization encoded certain info in the pyramids and elsewhere. I cannot accept that this space travel civilization cannot accurately compute the declination variation of Vega or any other planet as measured from the Earth. So if I find information from this ancient source then I will need pretty strong reasoning in regards to accuracy of such calculations from the scientific establishment. I will need to be convinced that the ancients did not do their homework. I just want to state that I have found divergences in regards to possible correlations that relate mostly to dating issues. But apart from this usually other relative data of SN seems very accurate - they lead to interesting correlations. There surley is an error level but it seems insignificant. I have also noted that going back in time there is an error that gets larger and larger - my refference to time - not that an alignent does not occur, but rather that it occurs at a different epoch. For example certain Giza layout - Biblical creation date - star alignments.

>>Anyhow, it wouldn't hurt to chime into Starry Night's blog and ask them to reference their calculation for Earth's pole. If they think that their users are starting to think their calculations might be bogus, they will have incentive to publish their calculation method for Earth's pole. (As they recently published, and corrected, their calculation method for Delta T which is Earth's spin rate.)<<

The problem is I am not an astronomist/astrophysisits and I do not know how to compute it using your meathod, so I cannot write to SN on somthing I do not know.

--I don't follow what you mean. The different passageway measures you quote span a range of 0.38 degrees. My difference with Starry Night's obliquity calculation circa 12,000 BC is less than 0.3 degrees. Also as I explained in another post, the shaft itself has an angular spread greater than that.<<

I presented different sources , on the angle, but this does not mean that all of them have the same probability of being correct. I think the Petrie value that you used is the most accurate. I have trouble accepting Rutherfords value since for one thing he came up with a lot of “goofy” theories. So even my theoretic value might be a bit off.

This might be due an error on behalf of SN. I don’t agree on the validity of the idea of considering the angular spread. The only way this might have been incorporated is if they wanted to encode multiple alignments close to each other. I don’t believe that the GP or any part of it was manipulated at the time of Zep Tepi. So the angular spread is not so important, although I’m not sure it is meaningless. Its possible that we are both right. The only way to know is if I use the equations you used on my theory and see what the divergence is. I also took a look if the ascending passageway aligns with any star.

>>Re: "Using my theory I find a descending passageway alignment with SN of 26.417°."

--That is unclear what you are referring to. Do you mean that your theory, employing Starry Night calculations of a star declination, predicts the shaft under the Pyramid should have an angle of 26.417 degrees?<<

Yes.

>>And because that is close to the quoted shaft angles you think Starry Night values must be exact without error? What if Starry Night corrected their calculations (as they have in the past) by some small amount, say 0.2 degrees? Are you indicating that would prove your theory false?<<

The problem is that we don’t know the descending passageway angle with great accuracy. At least this is the feeling I have, so we cannot check the accuracy of any theory in regards to questionable accuracy of the angle. But if we have a theory that proves correct in certain circumstances, then in the case of other correlations of questionable accuracy, it is probably up to competitive theorists or an independent observer to debunk it.

>>And that said, I caution against any theories that depend on such extreme accuracy at such extremely ancient dates. Whether my method (Berger, 1976), or whatever calculation method Starry Night uses, there is still going to be a standard error range, which we haven't even talked about yet, and which may be significant. Look at the standard error in the Delta T calculation that Starry Night uses, from NASA, it only goes back to 500 BC and the standard error in that is getting increasingly large at that time. As I noted, of the monument-star comparisons of that extremely ancient epoch, that I quote in Black Genesis, this Vega-to-Shaft calculation is the only one that could be significantly affected by an error of 0.3 degrees or less, and in Black Genesis I noted caution about the value.<<

I believe that a very advanced civilization encoded certain info in the pyramids and elsewhere. I cannot accept that this space travel civilization cannot accurately compute the declination variation of Vega or any other planet as measured from the Earth. So if I find information from this ancient source then I will need pretty strong reasoning in regards to accuracy of such calculations from the scientific establishment. I will need to be convinced that the ancients did not do their homework. I just want to state that I have found divergences in regards to possible correlations that relate mostly to dating issues. But apart from this usually other relative data of SN seems very accurate - they lead to interesting correlations. There surley is an error level but it seems insignificant. I have also noted that going back in time there is an error that gets larger and larger - my refference to time - not that an alignent does not occur, but rather that it occurs at a different epoch. For example certain Giza layout - Biblical creation date - star alignments.

>>Anyhow, it wouldn't hurt to chime into Starry Night's blog and ask them to reference their calculation for Earth's pole. If they think that their users are starting to think their calculations might be bogus, they will have incentive to publish their calculation method for Earth's pole. (As they recently published, and corrected, their calculation method for Delta T which is Earth's spin rate.)<<

The problem is I am not an astronomist/astrophysisits and I do not know how to compute it using your meathod, so I cannot write to SN on somthing I do not know.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.