> 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
It took you long enough.
May 21, 2012 you started a thread - Re: Saqqara - A Question......
In which I posted...….
Author: Audrey ()
Date: May 22, 2012 01:01AM
There is a way that Orion would appear upside down. I'm surprised you and the gods (Bauval & Hancock) haven't found it.
I don't think it's a glitch in Stellarium. I had Starry Night PRO at the time (in 2009) and I found the same thing, an upside down Orion when seen from the south pole. IIRC Orion, as seen from the south pole, barely rises above the horizon, just enough to see the belt, and it's upside down. Guess this could be proven if you taped Orion on your ceiling and stood on your head to look at it. Or, ask Stellarium or Starry Night. Is there an email for Stellarium support?
And regarding this circle...…
I can't tell you how delighted I was to see that. I found that same circle in 2006, but didn't know what to make of it. I used a 28" x 28" satellite image and the circle doesn't fall exactly as you have it, but damn near. You went in a different direction with it. I'm still not sure what to make of it, an orbit maybe? And now I ask you, when viewed from above why would you think the satellite pyramids are Orion's belt? What would the 3 great pyramids be? If the 3 satellites are the belt, the great pyramids must be something else. It doesn't make sense that the belt stars would be duplicated in the tiny pyramids because the great pyramids would have sufficed. Where you pick out one small detail, I think the pic of the whole circle will tell a different story.
My brother asked me back then, if you drew a line straight up from G1 or G2 where would it point to? Look at the longitude and latitude, and if you find the same thing I did be sure to mention me in your next book.
Otherwise Scott, and don't take this personally, I think you're missing the whole picture. You seem to be bogged down in a little detail of which there was no guarantee the tiny pyramids would survive thousands of years. I think we both believe there was a purpose to the layout and I find it hard to believe the builders would have banked it all on 3 tiny pyramids that probably wouldn't survive very long. They were smarter than that. If you wanted to leave a record to history would you consign it to 3 tiny pyramids, or 3 giant pyramids? And would you make the record so convoluted that it would forever be subjected to mere opinion? Or would you make it very clear?
I don't for a second believe they would have used twisting air shafts to point to a star. Dr Trimble saw the date 2550 bc because she subscribed to traditional Egyptology, and Bauval's date of 10,500 bc is coincidently the same date given by Edgar Cayce. Toss both aside Scott and look at the coordinates, don't try to make it fit with what anyone else says.
|Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||342||Scott Creighton||28-Jul-21 10:59|
|Re: Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||114||Audrey||28-Jul-21 20:54|
|Re: Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||109||Scott Creighton||29-Jul-21 11:49|
|Re: Finding Surid||103||Thunderbird||29-Jul-21 15:43|
|Re: Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||103||Spiros||29-Jul-21 21:59|
|Re: Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||111||Martin Stower||29-Jul-21 00:57|
|Re: Summary - Giza: Portrait of a Pole Shift||126||Spiros||30-Jul-21 15:46|