First of all, congratulations and many thanks if you have read this far. This is the third and final thread on this topic which gets to the nitty-gritty of it all and I do hope you'll find it's been worth your effort.
If you haven't already read them, then you can read Part #1 of this very long thread here and Part #2 here.
In the previous thread I hypothesised that the internal architecture of the Great Pyramid suggests that Giza was formerly located at just 3.5°N and, as a result of an Earth Crust Displacement (ECD) event, may have been raised in latitude by ~26.5° but that this latitudinal change resulted from an overall turning over of the Earth in space by 180° to finally end up at 30°S. With this information it is then possible to work out the total (observable) distance (in degrees) Giza would actually have shifted to get from its former latitude of 3.5°N to arrive at 30°S:
In simple terms, total latitudinal change (3.5°N + 30°S) = 33.5°.
However, including a 180° Earth inversion we then have 180° - 33.5° (total latitudinal change) = 146.5° (observable) degrees of shift.
I use the term 'observable' degrees of shift here since the actual distance travelled would have been a little bit more:
180° (inversion) - 26.5° (latitudinal rise as per the Great Pyramid's key internal angle) = 153.5°.
The reason only 146.5° shift would have been observable is because any geographic shift in Giza's latitude would have been measured by Sūrīd's astronomer-priests from the local horizon at Giza. This is to say that if Giza's local horizon (pre-inversion) was located at 3.5°N of the equator and the Earth turned over 180° (assuming here that no ECD is involved), then Giza would still end up at a latitude of 3.5° from the equator (although now south of it). Essentially 3.5°N and 3.5°S (a total of 7° of latitudinal change) would go unnoticed during the inversion i.e. 153.5° (180° - 26.5°) and would actually have appeared to Sūrīd's astronomer-priests as 146.5° (180° - 33.5°) or more simply, 153.5° - 7° = 146.5°. Giza has moved in latitude by 26.5° but due to the inversion adding on 7°, the actual shift is 33.5°, hence 180° - 33.5° =146.5°.
But do these figures stack up? Does the 'geometrical astronomy' of the Giza monuments bear out such a dramatic shift? Do the monuments there show us these key motions:
1) The Belt stars flipping 180°?
2) The Belt stars moving around the sky by 146.5°?
Let us see.
At Giza we find a curious arrangement of the 6 larger and 2 smaller satellite pyramids (figure 3.1):
Figure 3.1. The satellite pyramids at Giza appear to present the Pi constant (expressed in decimal, 3-1-4). (Note: not all plan drawings of the Giza plateau show the small pyramids to the southeast of G1 and the south of G2 as only the foundations of these small pyramids now exist).
This observation (figure 3.1 above) was made many years ago (see here). To this day I have no idea if this 3-1-4 configuration of the satellite pyramids we observe at Giza, seemingly signalling the mathematical constant of pi (expressed in decimal format), was the intention of the Designers or not. But intention here matters not, for what this observation actually did (whether by accident or design) was to 'prompt' me to ask myself the question: What might this 3-1-4 (pi) at Giza be signalling to us? And so, whether done intentionally by the Designers or not, that 3-1-4 observation of the Giza satellite pyramids made me start thinking of the Giza monuments in relation to a circle, something I would later find was to be absolutely key, imo, to understanding how the monuments on the plateau are to be interpreted and understood.
I further assumed that if this 3-1-4 satellite pyramid arrangement was implying the use of a circle at Giza, then I also felt sure that the Designers of it would have been smart enough to create their circle in such a way that it could not be considered anything but intentional design (i.e. they fashioned their circle in such a way that anyone observing it could not fail to understand that its 'construction' was way beyond the possibility of being accidental or the result of simple happenstance). And so, following on from this observation of the 3-1-4 satellite pyramid arrangement, below is what I dubbed the Great Giza Circle (figure 3.2). This may appear like any ordinary circle and, at first sight, seem quite arbitrary, but it's far from it. Allow me to explain.
Nodes 1, 2 and 4 have the common factor of being the three most outer pyramid corners of the Giza pyramid complex and they essentially define the dimension of this circle which, naturally, encloses all the Giza pyramids within it. We know that three non-linear points define a circle--no big deal there.
Now look a little closer. When we circumscribe this circle around those three most outer pyramid corners we find something rather peculiar occurs: the rear of the Sphinx ends up sitting right on the outside edge of our circumscribed circle (node 3 above) while the circle's centre ends up within a whisker of the centre of the centre pyramid (G2). Some will undoubtedly consider this observation is nothing more than a simple chance occurrence. Of course, it has to be conceded that this must remain a possibility (however remote). But if we consider this observation in terms of probability then this configuration of the Giza monuments, creating this particular (theoretical) circle, seems much more likely, imo, to have been the result of intentional design. Let me explain.
Most of us will know, as previously stated, that any three non-linear points will define a circle of a particular dimension. This is to say that, if you were to throw three small coins onto the floor, so long as they don't all land in a straight line, you will always find a circle of a particular size that will pass through the centre of each of your three coins. Each and every time. However, when you throw four coins onto the floor and try to connect all of these in the same manner, it becomes a very different proposition. What you will then find is that, unless you are very, very lucky, it will take you a very long time indeed to succeed in this endeavour. Certainly you will always find a circle that will connect any combination of three of your four coins - but not the fourth. Finding a circle that connects four random points is very difficult indeed. And finally, if you then throw five coins onto the floor and try to find a circle that connects four of your coins while ensuring the centre of your fifth coin lies within a whisker of the centre of your four-point circle then--well, I hope you begin now to see the extreme improbability of a successful outcome in such a task.
And yet here we have at Giza, staring us in the face, is a geometric layout that seems to defy such improbable odds. Such an outcome surely screams to us intentional design. And, of course, if this particular design was fully intended (as seems likely), then it stands to reason that it was fully intended to serve a purpose.
And, I suspect, part of that purpose could have been to demonstrate this (figure 3.3):
Figure 3.3. The 146.5° shift of Al Nitak (i.e. of the Earth) depicted at Giza.
With the two sets of satellite pyramids also depicting Orion's Belt (albeit in 'miniature'), we find that a line drawn from the centre of the Great Giza Circle to the apex of each of the Al Nitak satellite pyramids (shaded red) gives us an angular distance of 146.5°, in effect showing us that the Belt stars shifted by this amount from one location in the sky to another, thereby agreeing with the 146.5° latitude shift of Giza (as noted earlier) from 3.5°N to 30°S via a 180° Earth inversion.
But wait. If the Earth inverted 180° then why do we find the two sets of satellite pyramids at Giza are only set at right angles (90°) to each other? Why not 180°? The answer to this little conundrum depends on how you envisage what is being presented on the ground at Giza and, once again, the solution involves the Great Giza Circle.
Imagine the Great Giza Circle (figure 3.3) as being the horizon around Giza where sky meets ground. What we actually then observe when we look closely at the ground plan is that the red shaded pyramid (Al Nitak, Node #2) beside the Great Pyramid (G1) is closest to the horizon (i.e. closest to the ground) whilst the pyramid representing Mintaka (G1c) is furthest away from the horizon (i.e. furthest from the ground). If, as I have long argued, we consider the Giza ground plan in 3-dimensional terms (imagining that we could stack the pyramids one atop the other), then what this is showing us is that the red shaded Al Nitak pyramid is lowest in the sky while Mintaka is higher in the sky--Al Nitak is down while Mintaka is up.
On the other side of the Giza complex, however, we find there that the precise opposite is true. In the three small satellite pyramids south of G3 we find that it is Mintaka (Node #4) that is closest to (touches) the circle's perimeter (i.e. the horizon/ground) while Al Nitak (again shaded red) is furthest away from the horizon i.e. Mintaka is now down and Al Nitak is now up-- the Belt stars have flipped 180° during their (apparent) 146.5° journey (i.e. the Earth has turned over).
Of course, since gravity prohibits the stacking of one pyramid atop another, this Great Giza Circle appears to have been the ancient Designer's solution to demonstrating the Belt stars in 3-dimensions.The diagram below (figure 3.4) will, hopefully, better illustrate this idea:
"Sah [Orion] is encircled by the duat, pure and living on the horizon." - Pyramid Texts (Unas), Utterance 216.
Before moving on, it is perhaps also worth pointing out here another curious observation of these two sets of satellite pyramids. Notice in Figure 3.3 that the three satellite pyramids south of G3 are slightly smaller than their 'twin' set to the east of the Great Pyramid (G1). The slightly smaller size of the southern triad of satellite pyramids has always been something of a mystery and is generally believed by Egyptology to have come about simply as a consequence of them being alongside the smallest of the three main Giza pyramids (G3). But if we consider the scenario whereby the Belt stars are completely relocated, flipping 180° as they slide across the sky, we may find another solution.
The Belt stars in the 2 images (figure 3.5, left and right) are both at ~39.75° altitude/declination. Notice how in the image on the right, when in the northern sky (southern hemisphere), the Belt stars appear fractionally smaller and slightly less bright than their counterparts in the left image when in the southern sky (northern hemisphere).
(To be honest I'm not sure if what we are seeing here in these Stellarium images (above) is a real world observable phenomenon or merely a digital quirk of the software. But if not a quirk in the Stellarium software and this is an actual real-life phenomenon, then this difference in the size/brightness of the Belt stars when at ~39.75° altitude in two different hemispheres, may help explain the slightly smaller size of the southern satellite pyramids at Giza).
Now, if the Great Pyramid was constructed as a means to bring about the rebirth of the Egyptian kingdom after the worst effects of this ancient cataclysm had passed (as the Sūrīd Legend suggests), then, as previously noted, it stands to reason that the designers would present precise details (i.e. the geodetic data) of what was happening to their world, of how it had been geographically relocated as a result of the pole shift event. In this regard, the Coptic-Egyptian tradition further tells us:
“The king, also, deposited [within the pyramids] the instruments, and ... the positions of the stars, and their circles...”
So, accepting this ancient text at face value, where exactly might the ancient Designer have placed this geodetic/astronomical data? What exactly are these "instruments" that tell of "...the positions of the stars, and their circles..." and where do we find them?
We have already seen how the two sets of satellite pyramids at Giza presents part of this answer. But there is more. Some of you here on GHMB may recall that I have long hypothesised (since early 2006) that the two sets of two star shafts within the Great Pyramid were built into the monument, not to point to four individual star destinations for the king's soul (as is the traditional view) but, rather, to record how the "sky fell", to show how the stars in the heavens had moved in a highly irregular manner i.e. the star shafts record the relocation of Orion's Belt and, in particular, the star Al Nitak. These four shafts within Sūrīd's Great Pyramid (figure 3.6) are the "instruments" that tell us "...the positions of the stars, and their circles..." (as does the wider Giza complex, as we have already seen).
Figure 3.6. The star shafts of the Queen's Chamber.
Before continuing with this, allow me to first of all insert here a couple of (not unreasonable) assumptions with regards to the 2 shafts within the Queen's Chamber (QC):
1) The angular incline of the QC's southern shaft is given as 39.65° (Gantenbrink, 1993). For reasons I hope will become clear later, the inclination of this shaft was intended, imo, to have been set at 39.75°. This difference 0.10 of 1 degree in observing the altitude of Al Nitak is essentially invisible to the naked eye. (Or it may be that Al Nitak was observed accurately but that the inclination of this shaft is off by 0.10 of 1 degree--an imperceptibly small builders' error).
2) The angular incline of the QC's northern shaft was intended to mirror that of the northern shaft at 39.75°. This shaft's inclination is given as 39.12° (Gantenbrink, 1993).
This may seem like quite a large discrepancy (0.53 of 1 degree) from Gantenbrink's QC shaft values. However, what must be understood here is that Gantenbrink's robot explorer (Upuaut II), due to various difficulties, was unable to fully ascend and explore the QC's northern shaft and the German engineer had to give up his exploration of this shaft after only 17 metres up. A second exploration of this shaft was conducted in 2002 by National Geographic of which the archaeoastronomer, Guilio Magli, writes:
It does not seem unreasonable then to continue here upon the assumption that the two star shafts of the Queen's Chamber were each intended to present an identical angular inclination of ~39.75° (figure 3.6).Quote
"For the northern shaft [of the Queen's Chamber], available data by Gantenbrink give a value between 33° and 40°, but scattered pieces of information from the (never published) second exploration carried out by National Geographic [in 2002] apparently favour the idea that the two lower channels also were projected to stop at the same height, so that they are symmetrical." - Guilio Magli, 'Architecture, Astronomy and Sacred Landscape in Ancient Egypt', p.82
But what is it exactly that these two symmetrical shafts are depicting for us? Well, if the Great Pyramid is the terrestrial counterpart of Al Nitak in Orion's Belt then it would seem natural to think that what we may be looking at here in figure 3.6 (above) is the two QC shafts telling us that Al Nitak appeared to shift from one side of the sky to the other (along with, of course, all other stars). If the shafts truly are symmetrical then it seems that Al Nitak started at ~39.75° above the local Giza horizon and, after the pole shift event, it ended up at this very same altitude (though now in the northern sky of the southern hemisphere). The angular distance between these two shafts is, therefore, ~100.5°.
But if the purpose of the shafts in the Queen's Chamber is to target Al Nitak (i.e. its pre and post shift locations), what then is the purpose of the other set of shafts in the King's Chamber? The following animated GIF (figure 3.7) will hopefully make this apparent:
As can be seen in figure 3.7 above, it seems that the purpose of the KC shafts serves to give the orientation of Orion's Belt before and after the shift event. Without the KC shafts performing this function we simply would not know that the Belt stars had flipped 180° (i.e. that the Earth had flipped).
And so, once again, we are shown in the Giza monuments that the Belt stars flipped over 180°. And, as if to confirm this for us, the pre-shift and post-shift altitude of Al Nitak of ~39.75° (thereby giving an angular distance of the shafts of ~100.5°) also seems to be presented on the ground at Giza (figure 3.8):
Again using the theorised Great Giza Circle, we find that the angle from the rear of the Sphinx to the apex of the 2 Al Nitak pyramid locations is ~100.5° (thereby replicating the angle of the Great Pyramid's QC star shafts). And here we may also see the function of the famous Lehner-Goedicke line--it seems that it serves to connect the start and end points of the shift of Al Nitak (and, of course, Orion's Belt), showing us how Al Nitak slipped across the sky from one horizon to another (just like the star shafts show us) and flipped over 180° upon reaching its destination. (This may explain also why one of the Sphinx's epithets is 'Hor-akhty' or 'Horus of the Two Horizons').
And so we find on the ground at Giza that the QC shaft angle of ~100.5° is intrinsically linked with the other key angle of ~146.5° which we find when we project 2 lines from the centre of the Great Giza Circle again to the apex of each of the 2 Al Nitak (satellite) pyramids (figure 3.9a). This, in turn, is intrinsically linked to the latitudinal shift of ~33.5° that we also easily observe (figure 3.9b) and, as such, confirms a shift of Giza from ~3.5°N to ~30°S with all of it seemingly occurring as part of a great 180° inversion of the Earth.
Figure 3.9a. The relationship between the shaft angle of 100.5° and the geodetic shift of 146.5° (153.5°).
In short, the two sets of satellite pyramids at Giza show us the same Earth inversion event as the shafts of the Great Pyramid present to us thereby essentially corroborating each other.
And finally there's this (figure 3.10). To be perfectly honest I'm not sure if the values shown here have any relevance to what I have presented above but I thought them interesting and so have posted them anyway.
Once again, using only the Great Pyramid's most obvious internal angle values, we are perhaps being shown the ancient pole shift event in a slightly different way. Naturally if you have two shafts angled at ~39.75° then (because they must add up to 180°) the internal angle is calculated thus: 180° - (2 x ~39.75°) = ~100.5°. No great surprises there. The interesting part is the second set of values that add up to ~206.5° (the inverse or reciprocal of which is 153.5°).
(Note: I have used the ~100.5° angle in both sums as the architecture creating this angle i.e. the QC shafts, is intrinsically interconnected to the architecture forming the other set of angular values. As such the ~100.5° angle formed by the QC shafts seems to sit at the heart of it all).
If we consider the 180° value as representing the Earth inversion then, logically, we must subtract this from the second value (206.5°) leaving a remainder of 26.5°. If we then imagine that Giza, from its former location at ~3.5° north of the equator (see thread #2), was flipped 180° then, as mentioned previously, it will actually have shifted ~7° in absolute latitude (~3.5°N + ~3.5°S) even although it remains the very same distance (~3.5°) from the equator - Giza now sits at ~3.5°S. Our remainder of ~26.5° (206.5° - 180°) is then added to Giza's ~3.5°S latitude which takes it to ~30° south of the equator (which a later pole shift event - with no ECD element - will reverse). However, as I said, I can in no way be sure that these key values from the pyramid's most prominent internal architecture are hinting at any of this but I found these figures interesting nevertheless.
The Path of the Pole
In his research into the positions of the Earth's pole in ancient times, Charles Hapgood found a number of former pole locations, as have more recent researchers, Mark Gaffney and Mark Carlotto (figure 3.11).
Figure 3.11. The various former Earth pole positions.
The shifting of the Earth along this great spiral path would be necessary as it forms the path of least resistance to the shift while preserving the law of the conservation of angular momentum. As can be seen, pole positions during different Earth epochs seem to have been positioned at different geographic locations along this 'Path of the Pole' spiral, suggesting that the Earth settled in each of these past pole positions for some time. Why each pole shift event (ancient and 'recent') seems to occur along this spiral 'Path of the Pole' remains a mystery.
It rather seems to me from my ongoing research into this ancient Legend of King Sūrīd that pole shift events are actually not so unusual in the Earth's great cycles, nor does it seem that they are the ultimate existential threat that many believe them to be: unimaginably cataclysmic for sure but also survivable. Rather, it seems that pole shift events, imo, are an intrinsic and natural part of our planet's geophysical and orbital mechanics, occurring by whatever means after long periods of time--just as a number of our ancient 'myths' tell us. But it seems also that if we are to survive these recurring cataclysmic events, we must actively prepare our civilisation for them--just as Sūrīd prepared his.
And so we come to the end of this very, very long post. If you have made it this far in reading all of this, then I thank you. I hope that it has perhaps provided you with, at least, some food for thought.