Thank you again Graham for kindly inviting me to GHMB as your Author of the Month guest for July 2021.
Okay, to start things off here I should alert readers right from the kick-off that this is a very, very long post so I have split it into three separate parts (threads) for ease of reading and commenting upon. These 3 threads are based upon 'Wandering Stars', Chapter Three of my new book, 'The Great Pyramid Void Enigma' (Bear & Co., July 2021 US & Canada and August 2021 UK and Europe). I should add that there is some additional information presented here on GHMB that, for lack of space, didn't make it into the final book.
The premise of my new book proposes that the ancient oral tradition of the Coptic-Egyptians, which was translated and committed to the written form by Arab scholars in early Medieval times is, at its heart, essentially a true account of past historical events (albeit, as we might expect, somewhat garbled and embellished) and relates to us the beginnings of a truly catastrophic period in great antiquity, a pole shift of the Earth followed by a great deluge that would overwhelm and drown the ancient kingdom. In anticipation of this impending disaster, so the Coptic-Egyptian tradition tells us, King Sūrīd (possibly Suphis/Khufu) ordered the construction of pyramids - giant, immovable manmade mountains - into which everything would be placed to ensure that the kingdom could be 'reborn' after the worst effects of the cataclysm had passed. This Sūrīd 'legend' is, imo, a largely forgotten past bequeathed to us by an ancient civilisation that isn't so much lost as it has been misplaced in time.
Alas, most Egyptologists dismiss this Coptic-Egyptian Sūrīd tradition as simply myth and legend, the wild imaginings of a primitive and superstitious people. According to Egyptologists, the pyramids (all of them) were built simply as the tomb and eternal afterlife machine for the reigning pharaoh. End of lesson. It has long been my own view, however, that there is often some truth and much to be learned from within our ancient myths and legends, in particular the so-called 'Legend of Sūrīd' passed down to us by the Coptic-Egyptians and their Arabic translators. Indeed, I find it not a little gratifying to learn that more and more scientists seem now to be realising what many of us in the alternative history community have been saying for a very long time - that there are some essential truths of our ancient past wrapped up and lost in these so-called 'myths'.
The study of geomythology (founded by American geologist, Dorothy Vitaliano), is probably one of the newest scientific fields that is now emerging into full-blown mainstream study. Geomythology essentially studies ancient myths with a view to interpreting material that is often couched in deeply symbolic and often highly embroidered language into natural events of a geological, astronomical and even palaeontological nature that occurred in great antiquity. In the words of Vitaliano, ". . . [geomythology] helps convert mythology back into history."
Geologists have started to realize that there's actually information in some of humanity's oldest traditions and stories and that while it's of a different type of information than we tend to gravitate towards in contemporary science, it is still information”.
Despite the growth of geomythology, it is still seen as “flaky” by some academics. “Probably an element of stodginess on the part of scientists and historians still figures!” says Mayor. “But geomythological stories are expressed in poetic metaphors and mythic or supernatural imagery, and descriptions of catastrophic events and natural phenomena can be garbled over millennia, and because of this scientists and historians tend to miss the kernels of truth and rational concepts embedded in their narratives.”
Nunn puts this argument more strongly. “I'm a conventionally trained geologist and I can tell you that a lot of other conventionally trained geoscientists really don't like this kind of thing. There's a lot who are curious about it, but by and large, it's something that is considered so radical that people really don't want to consider it.
In the end, geomythology challenges our way of thinking about our past, and our future. “Geomythology challenges the belief that all myths and legends are only fictions and fantasy,” says Mayor. “Geomyths are treasuries of information and details for the physical sciences that would otherwise be missed.”- from here.
And this is essentially where we are today with the Coptic-Egyptian Sūrīd Legend which relates to us an unusual astronomical event in remote antiquity whereby the Earth seems to have tumbled over and the stars in the heavens moved from their normal passage across the night sky:
". . . It appeared to him, that the earth was overthrown, and that the inhabitants were laid prostrate upon it; that the stars wandered confusedly from their courses. . . The king then directed the astrologers to ascertain by taking the altitude whether the stars foretold any great catastrophe, and the result announced an approaching deluge. The king ordered them to inquire whether or not this calamity would befall Egypt; and they answered, yes, the flood will overwhelm the land, and destroy a large portion of it for some years. . ." - Vyse (quoting Austrian orientalist, Aloys Sprenger), Operations Carried On at the Pyramids of Gizeh, vol. II, 322–24.
Of course, it would not actually have been the stars themselves that were changing course but rather the Earth beneath them that was reorienting itself (relative to the 'fixed' stars ) and which became "overthrown". To a ground based observer it would appear that it was the stars that were deviating from their normal course across the heavens. Accepting this passage on face value, then this Sūrīd 'legend' seems to speak to us of a pole shift event that occurred at some time in remote antiquity.
Now, if such an event had occurred in our ancient past then it would surely have been observed by other cultures all over the world. And that is indeed what we find. In addition to the Sūrīd 'legend' there are also several other ancient texts from Egypt itself and many more from elsewhere around the world that speak of just such a cataclysmic event in remote times. In his controversial book Worlds in Collision (1950), the Russian scholar, Immanuel Velikovsky, cited many of these additional ancient sources that testify to such a cataclysmic event:
"In the second book of his history, Herodotus relates his conversations with Egyptian priests on his visit to Egypt. . . . The priests asserted that within historical ages and since Egypt became a kingdom, four times in this period (so they told me) the sun rose contrary to his wont; twice he rose where he now sets, and twice he set where he now rises."
Velikovsky goes on to present a wealth of other documentary evidence from Egypt and much farther afield, all testifying to the veracity of an ancient pole shift event:
Pomponius Mela, a Latin author of the first century, wrote: “the course of the stars has changed direction four times, and that the sun has set twice in that part of the sky where it rises today.”
The Magical Papyrus Harris speaks of a cosmic upheaval of fire and water when “the south becomes north, and the Earth turns over.”
In the Papyrus Ipuwer it is similarly stated that “the land turns round [over] as does a potter’s wheel” and the “Earth turned upside down.”
In the Ermitage Papyrus (Leningrad, 1116b recto) also, reference is made to a catastrophe that turned the “land upside down.”
Harakhte is the Egyptian name for the western sun. . . . The inscriptions do not leave any room for misunderstanding: “Harakhte, he riseth in the west.”
The texts found in the pyramids say that the luminary [the sun] “ceased to live in the Occident [the west], and shines, a new one, in the orient [the east].”
Plato wrote in his dialogue, “The Statesman” (Politicus) “I mean the change in the rising and setting of the sun and the other heavenly bodies, how in those times they used to set in the quarter where they now rise, and used to rise where they now set. . . . At certain periods the universe has its present circular motion, and at other periods it revolves in the reverse direction.”
According to a short fragment of a historical drama by Sophocles (Atreus), the sun rises in the east is only since its course was reversed. “Zeus . . . changed the course of the sun, causing it to rise in the east and not in the west.”
Caius Julius Solinus, a Latin author of the third century of the present era, wrote of the people living on the southern borders of Egypt: “The inhabitants of this country say that they have it from their ancestors that the sun now sets where it formerly rose.”
“The Chinese say that it is only since a new order of things has come about that the stars move from east to west. . . . The signs of the Chinese zodiac have the strange peculiarity of proceeding in a retrograde direction, that is, against the course of the sun.”
The Eskimos of Greenland told missionaries that in an ancient time the earth turned over and the people who lived then became antipodes.
In Tractate Sanhedrin of the Talmud it is said: “Seven days before the deluge, the Holy One changed the primeval order and the sun rose in the west and set in the east.”
The Egyptian papyrus known as Papyrus Anastasi IV contains a complaint about gloom and the absence of solar light; it says also: “The winter is come as (instead of) summer, the months are reversed, and the hours disordered.”
In addition to the above there are many other sources from the Bible and elsewhere that seem also to suggest a pole shift event having occurred long ago. So let us now, for the sake of the discussion, assume that this Coptic-Egyptian Legend of Sūrīd isn't mere myth and legend (as Egyptology generally believes) and proceed here on the basis that what has been handed down to us is factual information. Given then that the pyramids were Sūrīd's means to bring about a rebirth of his kingdom, it seems natural then to consider that the monuments at Giza might, therefore, hold important data of this tumultuous and long forgotten cataclysm. In this regard the 'legend' further states:
“The king, also, deposited [within the pyramids] the instruments, and ... the positions of the stars, and their circles...”
Furthermore, Egyptologists themselves (albeit for very different reasons) consider that some of the features of the Great Pyramid are indeed associated with the heavens and possess astronomical (solar and stellar) functions, particularly the monument's four so-called 'star shafts' (figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1. The four 'star shafts' of the Great Pyramid.
The traditional view held by Egyptologists is that the four so-called 'star shafts' of the Great Pyramid were built into the monument to assist in guiding the king's soul to four different afterlife destinations among the gods (the stars) of the northern and southern skies; stars that Egyptologists believe were sacred to the ancient Egyptians. But is this the real reason these four shafts were built into the Great Pyramid or does their apparent astronomical context perhaps point us towards a much more profound interpretation?
The First Breakthrough
She was entirely oblivious to the idea herself, but the first hint that the star shafts of the Great Pyramid actually point towards an ancient pole shift event came in 1964 when the American astronomer, Dr Virginia Trimble (working with Egyptologist, Alexander Badawy), made an intriguing discovery. Trimble had calculated that the ~45° inclination of the star shaft that runs from the south wall of the King's Chamber (KC), through the body of the pyramid to its exterior, would have targeted Al Nilam, the centre star of Orion's Belt (figure 1.2a-b) approximately around the time the Great Pyramid is believed by Egyptology to have been built.
Figure 1.2b. Dr Virginia Trimble calculated that the KC's southern shaft targeted Al Nilam in Orion's Belt ca.2550 BCE.
Here, for the first time, a stellar connection had been made between the Great Pyramid's shafts and the stars of Orion's Belt. More significantly, however, is that Trimble was able to determine a date for her star shaft alignment--ca. 2550 BCE. However, it was to be a very long journey toward a full appreciation and understanding of what these four enigmatic star shafts and the wider Giza complex was portraying to us.
Orion Correlation Theory (OCT) - The Second Breakthrough
The next significant step on the road to understanding the astronomical function of the Giza monuments arrived 30 years later when Robert Bauval presented what came to be known as the 'Orion Correlation Theory' (OCT). In his best-selling book, The Orion Mystery, the Egyptian-born researcher demonstrated that the tilt axis (from north) of a line through the two largest Giza pyramids corresponded to the tilt of a line through the two counterpart Belt stars (~43.20°) on the southern meridian ~10,500 BCE (figure 1.3).
And there it is--our first major clue: with this 8,000 year disparity, we observe the first inkling that something is surely amiss in our understanding of the astronomical integrity of the Giza monuments. Was this 8,000 year difference between the dates of Trimble and Bauval the result of some construction error by the builders or is there something deeper going on? For his own part Bauval has always insisted that the date disparity between his date and that of Trimble resulted because, while he accepts the mainstream view that the Giza pyramids were built ~2500 BCE, the designers used the Belt configuration of ~10,500 BCE (the sacred time of Zep Tepi) as the underlying design template for the ground plan of the Giza monuments. It was an explanation of sorts but one that, for various reasons, I personally never fully bought into.
All of the aforementioned has been known to many of us for several decades now. The next step in the quest to understanding the true nature of the Giza monuments is presented in my new book and it arose from asking myself the following simple question: Why should such a disparity of 8,000 years even exist between Trimble's date of ~2550 BCE and Bauval's date of ~10,500 BCE?
No one, inasmuch as I was able to determine during my research, had ever given this particular question much thought (if any at all). But, as we shall see, it's a question that really needs to be asked (and answered). Was it really (as Bauval appears to believe) because the ancient Egyptians passed down a sacred ground plan (Zep Tepi) for 8,000 years for it then to be implemented (for some unexplained reason) in ~2550 BCE? Or is there perhaps some other explanation for this great time gap? In thinking more about this 8,000 year dichotomy, I eventually came to realise that it actually presents to us a much deeper and more profound hidden truth, and a finding that may offer support to the controversial text in the Coptic-Egyptian Sūrīd Legend that tells us the stars wandered from their regular paths across the heavens and that the Earth was "overthrown".
So what is the hidden truth of this 8,000 year time gap between the Trimble and Bauval dates?
What must be observed and stressed here is that, from a purely theoretical perspective, the two different stellar observations made by Trimble and Bauval should (realistically) have arrived at the very same date since the builders, almost certainly, would have recorded Trimble's star altitude alignment and Bauval's Belt pivot alignment from the very same, single observation of the Orion Belt stars (figure 1.4).
Figure 1.4. Both the Trimble and Bauval alignments could (and likely would) have been made by the Designers of Giza during the same observation of the Belt stars.
I say this for two reasons:
1) As we shall see later, the star shafts of the Great Pyramid and the layout of the Giza pyramids present a very similar 'astronomical message' i.e. the 'astronomical message' of one set of features corroborates the other. Such corroboration would be highly unlikely to occur if these different features of the monuments had been planned at different times, from different observations of the Belt stars.
2) Recording both alignments from one and the same observation would actually have been absolutely essential since only by doing this is it possible to generate a unique stellar 'date-stamp' (assuming that this was actually part of the builders' intention) from within the full ~26,000 year precessional cycle (figure 1.5).
The Belt star Al Nitak (lowest star, figure 1.5) reaches an altitude of 45° on the southern meridian on two occasions within one full precessional cycle of ~26,000 years. Previously these occurred ~19,200 BCE and then again ~2500 BCE. If we used only the KC's southern star shaft to target Al Nitak's 45° altitude then, with no other astronomical data, we simply cannot know if this star shaft alignment was created in ~19,200 BCE or in ~2550 BCE. Mainstream arguments against such an extreme date notwithstanding, either date could be valid. The very same situation arises with Bauval's pivot angle of the Belt--again there are two occasions within each precessional cycle of ~26,000 years where it is angled at 43.20° and so, in the absence of other pertinent astronomical data, we simply cannot know which of the two sky-ground matches is the true date.
If we really want to date the monuments by stellar means then only by placing both alignments (from the same single observation of the Belt stars, figure 1.4) into the design, can the two possible dates be differentiated and a unique and precise dating set. In this scenario Trimble's star altitude alignment and Bauval's Belt pivot alignment would then work together to present a unique configuration which could not then be confused with any other possible alignment date. We have to also surmise that if dating the construction was (one of) the intention(s) of the designers, then they would, imo, likely have understood the absolute necessity of needing and using bothof these astronomical alignments (from the very same observation) and not just one.
What this means, of course, is that using our modern star mapping software to try and date either one of the two alignments should, in theory, bring us automatically to the same date and the correct disposition of the other alignment (since both alignments would, theoretically, have been made and recorded at the very same moment--if you find one, you'll automatically find the other). Bauval must have got quite a shock when he first discovered the 8,000 year gap between his Belt pivot dating technique to Trimble's star altitude method.
And therein lies the dichotomy and perhaps also a hidden truth. What we find with the Trimble and Bauval alignment observations at Giza is a paradox; a bizarre mismatch between the two alignments of some 8,000 or so years that is truly puzzling since, theoretically and realistically, this immense time gap simply should not exist.
Certainly over the precessional Great Year of 26,000 years there are a number of dates when each of the three Belt stars took a turn at reaching an altitude of 45° on the southern meridian. And yes, we can also find within that time several dates when Orion’s Belt was pivoted at 43.20° when viewed due south. However, all instances of pivot date and altitude date are separated from each other by many thousands of years, with no conjunction or convergence of the two ever occurring. And, as explained previously, this time gap realistically should not exist since the data for each alignment would almost certainly have been obtained from the same single observation of the Belt stars and this becomes absolutely essential if the intention is to create a unique sky-ground 'map' (thereby locking into the monuments a unique 'date-stamp').
One of the ways (and, imo, the likeliest) to explain this 8,000 year dichotomy is to accept what the ancient Coptic-Egyptian tradition tells us and invoke a pole shift event whereby the Earth (depending on the type and magnitude of the shift involved) would lose much of its former geophysical/orbital properties. One of the natural consequences of such an event would be to alter the Earth's precessional properties which, in turn, would cause a 'decoupling' or 'unravelling' of the dual-alignment the builders had previously built into the monuments (after the first pole shift event). These two (now independent) alignments would then be found millennia later by Trimble and Bauval.
The original dual-alignment (conjunction) made by the designers would break down to such an extent that its two component parts (altitude angle and pivot angle) could no longer be reconciled to a single date - they're now 'out of kilter', no longer in-sync. This is why, imo, there are 8,000 years between the alignment dates as presented by Trimble and Bauval: these two alignments were, long ago, targeting the very same date with not even a minute between them until a second pole shift event (millennia later) turned the Earth over again and 'decoupled' the original dual-alignment forever. In discovering this 8,000 year time gap, Bauval had actually, though unwittingly, discovered evidence of an ancient pole shift event (i.e. the most recent event). Indeed, had the second (more recent) pole shift event not occurred, then Bauval and Trimble would likely have arrived at the very same date with their different astronomical dating techniques.
There is, of course, something of a great irony to Bauval's discovery. One of the most vocal critics of his Orion Correlation Theory (OCT) was the astronomer Dr Ed Krupp of the Griffiths Observatory in Los Angeles who complained that the images of Giza and Orion's Belt Bauval had presented in his book (on opposite pages), were actually rotated at 180° from each other. Many of us here will know that this particular debating point of Krupp's would rumble on for decades with both academic and layman opinion alike seemingly split on the issue. The irony, however, arises from this quote from Dr Krupp made in 2001:
"You can, then, match Orion to Giza by looking south, but you invert the cardinal directions of one map or the other to do it. In this kind of mapping (just face south), the angle of the “Belt” of pyramids is okay, but north in the sky is mapped to the south on the ground. This is equivalent to turning Egypt upside down, and that is what I have said in publications, correspondence, lectures, and on television." - from here.
Here the American astronomer is actually inferring that, if Giza truly does represent the Orion Belt stars as Bauval proposes, then, for the sky-ground match to be astronomically correct and true, then Giza (i.e. the Earth) has to be turned upside-down. Here Dr Krupp is, albeit unwittingly, advocating that a proper match of Belt Stars and Giza pyramids can be done only by turning Giza over on its head, something that the Sūrīd Legend suggests actually happened and of which, as we shall see in my other threads on this issue, the Giza monuments themselves seem to confirm.
As mentioned briefly above, all of this suggests that since the Giza monuments were first built, encoding how the Earth's geophysical properties had changed in remote times after an initial pole shift event, a second (and more recent) pole shift event has occurred (there is some evidence also for this presented in my new book) that effectively erased and replaced the geodynamics of the Earth that had prevailed between the first (older) and second (more recent) pole shift events.
The Giza monuments would, just as the Sūrīd Legend tells us, have been built shortly after the first pole shift event, locking into them the Earth's 'new' (at that time) geophysical properties. Thousands of years later, however, it seems that a second pole shift event (slightly different in nature from the first) occurred and effectively replaced the Earth's former geophysical properties that had been encoded by the builders into the pyramids but not, of course, into our modern star mapping software which uses the geophysical/orbital properties of the Earth after the most recent pole shift event, leaving us now with a 'time-slip' dichotomy of 8,000 years as a consequence of these two separate (and different) pole shift events.
Continued in new thread (to follow).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08-Jul-21 18:27 by Scott Creighton.