In anticipation of this impending disaster, so the Sūrīd tradition tells us, the king 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. The pyramid was not so much the 'tomb of the king' as it was the 'womb of the kingdom'.
It is the view of science that rapid geographic pole shift events simply cannot occur. As such, the passages of the Sūrīd legend which suggest such an event did occur in remote antiquity (as do many other ancient accounts) is simply dismissed as wild fantasy. And so, it seemed to me that to give some credence to this particular aspect of the Sūrīd legend, then a reassessment of the issue, particularly with regard to what the Giza monuments themselves might tell us, had to be made; hence my new book and the three very long threads (Part #1, Part #2 and Part #3) here on GHMB, all of which I will now attempt to summarise here.
1) In 1964, Dr Virginia Trimble calculated that the angle of the southern shaft of the King's Chamber (KC) would have targeted Orion's Belt (more specifically, according to Robert Bauval in The Orion Mystery, the altitude of the Belt star Al Nilam) around the time of the early 4th Dynasty (~2600 BCE) when the Great Pyramid is believed to have been built. More recent analysis shows this date (for Al Nilam) to be nearer to ~2550 BCE.
2) Some 30 years later, Robert Bauval (with Adrian Gilbert) found a different astronomical method to date the Giza monuments. Bauval realised that a line through the apex of the two largest pyramids, G1 - G2, created the angle of 43.2°. Using an early star-mapping computer programme (Skyglobe 3.5), Bauval found that the same angle of 43.2° through the two pyramids' celestial counterparts (Al Nitak - Al Nilam) occurred ~10,500 BCE--a difference from Trimble's altitude dating method of almost 8,000 years!
3) Assuming both alignments are real and deliberate, then this ~8,000 year time gap, logically and realistically, simply should not exist since the ancient Designers of Giza would almost certainly have recorded both the alignments of Trimble and Bauval from the very same, single observation of the Belt stars. (Put simply - to encode a unique date stamp into the Giza monuments then it is vital that you obtain two different alignments from the same single observation of the Belt stars). As such, if we then searched for, say, the date of the Bauval alignment, we should then automatically also discover the Trimble alignment (on the very same date), and vice-versa. However, that is not what we find. Instead we find a dichotomy whereby the two alignments of Bauval and Trimble are separated by many thousands of years when, as stated previously, there should not be even a single minute between the two alignments. As both would have been made on the same day, then both should lead us back to the same day in our star-mapping software.
One of the simplest ways of explaining this apparent dichotomy is to invoke a pole shift event that essentially 'decoupled' the dual-alignment the builders had almost certainly made, creating two disparate alignments (and dates) that would be found millennia later by Trimble and Bauval.
4) Aside from the many ancient texts that testify to it, physical evidence suggesting a different Earth pole having existed in ancient times also comes from many, many researchers of the question over the years. In more recent times the work of Jim Bowles and Jim Alison showed that many ancient sacred sites around the world can be connected by a great circle, suggesting a former equator and thus placing the centre of this circle, Southeast Alaska / Yukon, as being the location of one of the Earth's former poles (there have been several identified).
(Image © Jim Alison. Reproduced here with kind permission).
Given this SE Alaska/Yukon pole position, then it seems that Giza, in that remote time, had been located at a latitude of ~3.5°N and would later be geographically relocated (via some, as yet unidentified, mechanism) to a latitude of ~30°S, and all of this occurring as part of a 180° inversion event. In simple latitudinal terms, Giza would have been relocated some 33.5° (3.5°N + 30°S). Overall shift distance would have been 180° - 33.5° = 146.5°. This is to say that if the inversion stopped short of 180°, then with the Earth precessing/turning through the polar axis (in a great spiralling motion), then Giza would find itself relocated to a different latitude (i.e. 30°S). (Note: A later, more recent inversion event - with no geographical relocation element - would reverse all of this).
5) As the Earth inversion progresses, the Orion Belt stars (along with all other stars) would appear to slide from one part of the sky to the opposite side of the sky and, due to the inversion event, from the northern hemisphere into the southern hemisphere. This event may have been 'recorded' in the star shafts of the Great Pyramid:
6) This shift of Orion's Belt ('referenced' to the star Al Nitak since it is this star's terrestrial counterpart--the Great Pyramid--that contains the star shafts), may also have been 'recorded' in the satellite pyramids at Giza where we see that, as they move round the sky by 146.5°, they also invert 180°.
As such, we find that each set of structures (the GP shafts and the satellite pyramids) essentially corroborates the 'message' of the other - the Belt stars move from one side of the sky to the other and, as they do so, they invert 180° (as a result of the Earth inversion).
7) It may also be that when the Belt stars appear at the same altitude in the sky of the southern hemisphere, they apparently are slightly less bright and seem slightly smaller, an observation that may explain why the southern satellite pyramids at Giza were built smaller than their northern counterparts. (It has to be said here, though, that this observation of the Belt stars may simply be a quirk of the Stellarium software).
It is my view that the evidence on the ground at Giza is almost certainly demonstrating to us what the Sūrīd legend seems also to be telling us--that the stars changed their paths across the heavens and that the Earth was "overthrown" i.e. a pole shift event whereby the Earth was overturned. Between them, the star shafts and the two sets of satellite pyramids at Giza appear to represent:
"...the instruments. . . with which his [Sūrīd's] forefathers had sacrificed to the stars, and also their writings; likewise, the positions of the stars, and their circles..."
From my ongoing research into this ancient Legend of King Sūrīd, it rather seems to me that pole shift events are actually not so unusual in the Earth's great cycles (just as some ancient texts tell us), and 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' also tell us. But it seems that if we are to survive these recurring cataclysmic events, we must actively prepare our civilisation for them--just as Sūrīd prepared his.
|Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||263||Scott Creighton||28-Jul-21 10:59|
|Re: Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||83||Audrey||28-Jul-21 20:54|
|Re: Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||78||Scott Creighton||29-Jul-21 11:49|
|Re: Finding Surid||73||Thunderbird||29-Jul-21 15:43|
|Re: Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||75||Spiros||29-Jul-21 21:59|
|Re: Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||79||Martin Stower||29-Jul-21 00:57|
|Re: Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||80||Spiros||30-Jul-21 15:46|