MJ: Scott has indeed given an answer to each of my questions so far, but often there’s a marked difference between ‘an answer’ and ‘the answer’.
SC: I am not aware that you actualy asked for 'THE' answer. I offered you an answer that is perfectly plausible. Did they execute the Orion Geo-Stellar Fingerprint plan perfectly on the Giza plateau? No, they did not. They got some things slightly out of whack and were constrained by the topology with other matters such as the placement of G2 - it could not be placed at its Orion GSF position on the plateau because, in our opinion, a rocky outcrop made it impossible. There is evidence at Giza that G2 had originally been planned to be sited much closer to its Orion GSF location.
MJT: There is absolutely no doubting that there is a very striking similarity between the layout of Orion's Belt and the layout of Giza pyramids 1, 2 and 3.
SC: What we present is not just about the layout patterns matching. It is about the FACT that using the Blelt stars we can re-create the relative base proportions of the three main Gizamids to a very high degree of accuracy. Again, not perfect but very, very close - 100% ratio between G1 and G2 and over 98% for ratio G2-G3. This is, statistically speaking, significant.
In using the Belt Stars in the manner we describe in our book (the GSF) allows us to re-create the relative base dimensions to a high degree of accuracy. It allows us to explain how G3 is so much smaller than G1 and G2. It explaind how G3 comes to be a sligh rectangle shape rather than square(ish) like G2 and G1. It explains how G2 comes to be slightly smaller than G1. It explains the inter-quarter relationships between the structures we find on the plateau, G1 and G3 (and G2 when centred on its Belt Star GSF position). It explains also the distance between G1 and G3 (and also G2 when centred on its Belt GSF position). What do I mean by this?
Well, MJ - as I have explained in a number of other posts, the inter-quarter lines are not parallel. If they were then G1 and G2 would have the same dimensions. It's because these lines are not parallel that causes the slight size difference between G1 and G2. Now, think about this - if the lines are not parallel i.e. they are wider apart at G1 and closer together at G3 then they must continue past G3 (hypothetically, of course) and must eventually come to a point somewhere in the SW desert, several kilometres from G3 and G1.
Now, imagine a clear, plastic cone that is several kilometres tall. The plastic cone is open at the top and comes to a point at the bottom. Now, using a black marker, mark a random circle around the circumference of the cone at some random point along its length. Now ask a friend to select a random ball. Imagine them dropping the ball into the top of the cone and it drops along its length.
What do you think, MJ, are the chances of your friend's randomly chosen ball being jammed in the ever narrowing cone at the precise centre of your randonly drawn circle? If you fail once, try again from scratch. How long do you think it will take you, MJ, to get that randomly chosen ball (there are several different sizes) to jam precisely centre to your randomly marked circle on the plastic cone? What do you think the odds are of you succeeding.
And yet, MJ, lo and behold, this is exactly the scenarion we find between G1 and G3. G3's dimensions are just right at the right distance away from G1 for it to slot into its precise theoretical position. And yet, the AEs somehow, in your opinion, managed to achieve such an incredible feat by sheer chance alone. Are you serious?
MJ: However, there is no clear evidence (and certainly none appears in the first half of your and Scott's book) for this phenomenon being the deliberate product of a single pan-generational plan at Giza.
SC: See above.
The base proportions of G1 and G2 are defined ONLY when G3 has been defined. This tells us, unequivocally, that we are dealing with a preconceived plan for three structures and their satellites (the so-called Queens).
Now, there is another probability value over and above that given above that you should also factor into the probability of all this just being "coincidence" as you are claiming. We have briefly discussed this before but you seem to be overlooking it. This is what I call 'The Challenge'.
Get three friends to each draw a square or rectangle on a piece of card. Cut-out these three squares/rectangles. These are your three random bases. Mark the centre of each of the cut-out bases with a black pen.
Now throw the three bases to the floor. Observe the pattern made by the three centres of these three cards. You may move one of the bases fractionally in any direction. (Afterall, G2 is not exactly in its proper location, so fair's fair).
Using these three centres, follow the procedure outlined in the GSF in our book and try and recreate your three bases in the order they have fallen and in the shape and proportions they have been made by your three friends. (You might find it helpful to photograph the arrangement with a digital camera, upload the image into Powerpoint or whatever and attempt the procedure that way. Saves a lot of time crawling about the floor).
If the first arrangement of the centres doesn't produce a match in orientation, order, shape and proportion to your three bases then throw your three cut-out bases to the ground again and repeat. Keep repeating until you find a match.
If the Gizamids had been defined in the manner proposed in our book i.e. using the Orion GSF but had been laid out on the ground at Giza, say, in a straight east-west line and in a different order, it would have been infinitely more difficult for me - or anyone - to discover this simple technique or the correct star asterism used to achieve those proportions. However, the fact that the builders actually laid down the Gizamids in pretty much the same way that their proportions, shapes and orientations were designed helped immensely to discovering the technique and the correct star asterism that was used to define them.
Can you get the three centres of your randomly created bases to replicate those three bases in the correct order, with the correct proportions and orientation using the GSF process?
What you will quickly realise, MJ, is that you would not have enough life-times to find such a match. And lo and behold - once again, this is almost exactly what we have at Giza.
So, MJ, we have two quite remarkable geometric 'impossibilities' taking place on the Giza plateau. The only reasonable way we can consider that these came into being is in the manner we describe in our book i.e. using the Geo-Stellar Fingerprint of Orion's Belt.
If you, or anyone else, considers all of this as some freak of coincidence then I rather suggest it is more a denial of the probabilities that go against creating such an outcome through random chance.
In short, we have in the inter-quarter relationships of G1 and G3 the smoking gun of preconceived planning. The Orion GSF presents a highly compelling case that it was the plan since it can re-create much of what we find at Giza, including the Lehner-Goedek line, the G3 slight rectangle, etc, etc.
MJ: Also, it occurs to me that a scaled plan of the layout of the Giza pyramids could have been created without recourse to the geometry and arithmetic (i.e. the ‘Orion Geostellar Fingerprint’) that Scott and you claim the Giza pyramids’ builders used.
SC: The GSF was used ONLY to design the plan i.e. the three bases. Once these are defined then a grid system is overlayed and a scaled version overlayed on the plateau. Setting out a grid would not have been beyond the means of the AEs.
MJ: All it needed was a good eye, a clear night sky, and an ability to draw a fair copy of a simple natural pattern made up of three dots/stars.
However, getting the pattern off the papyrus page and onto the Giza Plateau was another matter, and one that in terms of the uncertain skills of the Giza surveyors troubles me.
SC: A simple grid is all it needs.
Post Edited (29-Feb-12 23:59)