Pyramids and the Pleiades

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
I recently discovered some interesting correlations between major pyramids of Egypt and the star group the Pleiades, the "Seven Hathors" of the ancient Egyptians. Hathor was a goddess of the dead and had statues in Giza, including ones with her and Menkaure together. Here are some images illustrating these correlations.

Great Pyramid and 2nd pyramid correlation with Taygeta and Celaeno when Alcyone was due West in 2588 BC, a random year near start of Khufu's reign.

11lhc9i.png


Djedefre's pyramid and Great Pyramid correlation with Atlas and Taygeta.

2hrj0b6.png


Dashur Red and Bent pyramids correlation with Atlas and Merope when Atlas due West.

xencs9.png


Great Pyramid chambers correlation with Atlas and Alcyone.


15ribcy.png


Correlation of Merope azimuth with Great Pyramid azimuth, a little under 4 arc minutes South of due West. Merope was at this azimuth throughout the 4th Dynasty.

2wd0wv7.png


Bent Pyramid chambers correlation with Merope and Electra.

21adape.png


Are there secret third chambers in the Great Pyramid at Merope's position and in the Bent Pyramid at Atlas' position? I'm guessing yes but I'm not in a position to find out.
 

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
In case anyone thinks that the pyramids/Pleiades correlations indicate that the "Pleiadians" were involved in the pyramid designs at some far distant time, like say 10,000-12,000 BC (or even 25,000 BC), I should point out that the Pleiades never reached due West before sinking below the horizon prior to about 3000 BC. So the Pleiades Correlation Theory actually rules out the "lost civilization" theories of people such as Graham Hancock.

Here's how far from due West the Pleiades were in 10,000 BC.

oayh4l.png


I suppose you could postulate that the Egyptians had retained some sort of ancient mythology about the origins of their seemingly sudden advancement to civilization with help from the Pleiadians, but it seems more likely that the Pleiades were interesting to them simply because they were in the bull constellation in which the sun rose at the vernal equinox in the 4th Dynasty. But who knows, maybe the Pleiadians used their tractor beams to lift those massive granite stones of the King's Chamber.
 

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
So the odd man out in my Pleiades Correlation Theory was Menkaure's Pyramid. I have now solved that as well. Rather than correlating to Pleiades stars when Alcyone was due West, it employs the Pleiades when Alcyone was due East. If Alcyone was placed at Khafre's Pyramid then Atlas would be at Menkaure's Pyramid.

This explains why the Giza trio doesn't match any 3 star combination in the Giza sky. It's not 3 stars at the same time, the third one is at a completely different time than the first two and the star placed at Khafre's Pyramid is different from the one used in the Great Pyramid/Khafre's Pyramid Pleiades correlation.

The 90 degree readout on the Alcyone line got cut out for this image but anyone can replicate this with their own astronomy program and confirm that it is indeed due East. I used the year 2550 BC for this image, figuring that's about when the pyramid would have been built.

b8rbro.png
 

kamalktk

Antediluvian
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
6,632
ok, I'll have a go.

Your images only display two objects (different objects in different images) lining up with the constellation. You have two things on the ground, and any two points are connected by a line, and two things in the sky (two stars of the constellation), also any two points connected by a line. Since there's just two lines, matching two lines up is rather trivial exercise, in this case the two pyramids could be matched to any arbitrary constellation by adjusting the scale of the overlay of the constellation on the objects, because you're fitting one line to a second line. If you pick any two objects on the Earth, one can match them to any to stars of any arbitrary constellation.

The three star business, with one star being at a different time, is rather poor, since the rotation of the heavens ensures there will be a star at virtually every point one in the sky.

You would do better to show multiple objects fitting at once.
 

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
kamalktk said:
ok, I'll have a go.

Your images only display two objects (different objects in different images) lining up with the constellation. You have two things on the ground, and any two points are connected by a line, and two things in the sky (two stars of the constellation), also any two points connected by a line. Since there's just two lines, matching two lines up is rather trivial exercise, in this case the two pyramids could be matched to any arbitrary constellation by adjusting the scale of the overlay of the constellation on the objects, because you're fitting one line to a second line. If you pick any two objects on the Earth, one can match them to any to stars of any arbitrary constellation.

The three star business, with one star being at a different time, is rather poor, since the rotation of the heavens ensures there will be a star at virtually every point one in the sky.

You would do better to show multiple objects fitting at once.

You neglected to mention that the "two objects" were two of only 7 bright stars in a single small asterism at a specific point in time, when the brightest star was on the West or East meridian. You would have a valid point if it were two random stars which were not connected in any way, like being part of an asterism known to the AE as the Seven Hathors, and if it were at a randomly chosen time rather than an exact due East/West position. That's the whole point, the angles are exactly the same when Alcyone was due West, or East in the case of the 3rd pyramid. That apparently escaped your notice.

I don't know about you but I have to think that it is extremely unlikely to be mere chance occurrence that the Pleiades only got to a due West/East position in 2977 BC and then only a few centuries later the Giza pyramids were positioned at the EXACT angles as those stars in the constellation Taurus which was associated with the Egyptian kings as a bull and the asterism which was associated with their goddess of the dead, Hathor. Now, if the angles were just vaguely similar, as in the case of Orion's Belt, then it would be a mere theory. Since the angles are demonstrably EXACTLY THE SAME, I maintain that it is you are required to provide a basis for this NOT being the actual solution to the Giza layout mystery. Of course, the fact that the GP chambers ALSO match stars in the SAME asterism at the SAME time will make your task a tad more difficult, but do proceed. You can start by saying that the angles are not exact, to which I will reply "yes they are, you're move".
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,988
Location
In a Liminal Zone
Apropos Tuarus, you've no evidence that the Eygptians even used the same constellations as we currently use.

And you've around 100 pyramids to chose from. You only approximately fit the stars to the pyramid chambers, you've lots of wiggle room.

And you contradict yourself by insisting things are an exact match, then say that the angles aren't an exact match.

The fact that you have to start flipping things around to fit your scheme, i.e. to incorporate Menkaure's pyramid, is pretty strong evidence that you're imagining correlations that don't exist.
 

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
Timble2 said:
Apropos Tuarus, you've no evidence that the Eygptians even used the same constellations as we currently use.

And you've around 100 pyramids to chose from. You only approximately fit the stars to the pyramid chambers, you've lots of wiggle room.

And you contradict yourself by insisting things are an exact match, then say that the angles aren't an exact match.

The fact that you have to start flipping things around to fit your scheme, i.e. to incorporate Menkaure's pyramid, is pretty strong evidence that you're imagining correlations that don't exist.

I beg to differ. Are there 100 pyramids in Giza? Are there 100 pyramids of that size and construction quality? I think not. Nobody would care if I solved any of those other ones but Giza is in a class of its own.

The correlation involving Djedefre's Pyramid appears slightly inaccurate, if that's what you wre referring to as me saying the angles were inaccurate (I don't recall saying that and you didn't bother to provide a quote, for some odd reason), but then it's a distance of about 5 miles so I think we can afford the builders a little leeway on that one.

In regard to the GP chambers, yes, there is some wiggle room, maybe 2-3 feet. The fact that the stars are in the middle of the lower areas of both chambers seems sufficiently exacting to me. They used geometric factors in the design in addition to the stellar factors. Kind of impossible for both factors to coincide exactly. The two chambers are in a 1 to 2 rectangle relationship in addition to the stellar one. It's the same with the pyramid placements. The centers are based on star positions but the outer edges are in square root relationships. You have an overly simplistic view of the Giza design, that's the problem.

Now in regard to whether the AE had a bull constellation, they most certainly did. They didn't call it Taurus, of course, since they spoke Egyptian not Latin or whatever. Why don't you tell me what it was that the Pyramid Texts referred to as "The Bull of Heaven"? I guess there must be another bull constellation up there somewhere, huh? Gee, how'd I miss that? Do you think that the AE were unaware that the sun at the vernal equinox rose in a group of stars which resembled a bull? What was all that bull worship about then? And why did it change to a ram when the sun precessed out of what we call Taurus? And what exactly did the "Seven Hathors" refer to if not the Pleiades? Do enlighten me, oh bard of ancient Egyptian culture.

"In all sky mythologies, and especially in the Egyptian one, there always existed a great bull in the sky represented by the vast constellation of Taurus (Footnote 43; See Denderah Zodiac for example). This celestial bull is closely connected with Orion the Hunter, such that classical depictions generally show Orion's left arm extending with his hand up to the 'head' of Taurus. Recently, it has been recognised that the Mithraic bull, slain by the Persian-Roman deity, Mithra, is offering an astronomical scene where Mithra is Orion and the head of the celestial 'bull' is none other than the Hyades. This imagery conforms with the classical Greek and Roman representation of Orion and Taurus, with the Hyades being the 'head' of Taurus. It is therefore interesting to note that the eyes of the bull were Aldebaran and star 311 (Epsilon Taurus)..."[5]

http://doernenburg.alien.de/alternativ/ ... ri06_e.php


Now how exactly is me flipping Pleiades around to the East a reason to doubt my theory? Did you expect the kings to make it obvious what they were basing their pyramid designs on, like depicting the extremely obvious Orion's Belt or something? Yup, I guess I'll just have to scrap the whole theory now since I involved both due West and due East. As everyone knows, the AE didn't care about anything in the eastern sky as well as the western sky, right? They were actually EQUALLY important. To exclude the East entirely would have been peculiar.

I find it very odd that after seeing what I posted you would nit pick about such trivialities as you raised. What exactly is your agenda? Do you NOT want Giza to ever be solved? I have to wonder why that would be. Is it because it wasn't YOU who did it? Whose fault is that? Where is YOUR explanation? I can't seem to find it. Let's see how hard it would be for me to knit pick that. It's hard to knit pick NOTHING.
 

kamalktk

Antediluvian
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
6,632
autonomicus8 said:
kamalktk said:
ok, I'll have a go.

Your images only display two objects (different objects in different images) lining up with the constellation. You have two things on the ground, and any two points are connected by a line, and two things in the sky (two stars of the constellation), also any two points connected by a line. Since there's just two lines, matching two lines up is rather trivial exercise, in this case the two pyramids could be matched to any arbitrary constellation by adjusting the scale of the overlay of the constellation on the objects, because you're fitting one line to a second line. If you pick any two objects on the Earth, one can match them to any to stars of any arbitrary constellation.

The three star business, with one star being at a different time, is rather poor, since the rotation of the heavens ensures there will be a star at virtually every point one in the sky.

You would do better to show multiple objects fitting at once.

You neglected to mention that the "two objects" were two of only 7 bright stars in a single small asterism at a specific point in time, when the brightest star was on the West or East meridian. You would have a valid point if it were two random stars which were not connected in any way, like being part of an asterism known to the AE as the Seven Hathors, and if it were at a randomly chosen time rather than an exact due East/West position. That's the whole point, the angles are exactly the same when Alcyone was due West, or East in the case of the 3rd pyramid. That apparently escaped your notice.

I don't know about you but I have to think that it is extremely unlikely to be mere chance occurrence that the Pleiades only got to a due West/East position in 2977 BC and then only a few centuries later the Giza pyramids were positioned at the EXACT angles as those stars in the constellation Taurus which was associated with the Egyptian kings as a bull and the asterism which was associated with their goddess of the dead, Hathor. Now, if the angles were just vaguely similar, as in the case of Orion's Belt, then it would be a mere theory. Since the angles are demonstrably EXACTLY THE SAME, I maintain that it is you are required to provide a basis for this NOT being the actual solution to the Giza layout mystery. Of course, the fact that the GP chambers ALSO match stars in the SAME asterism at the SAME time will make your task a tad more difficult, but do proceed. You can start by saying that the angles are not exact, to which I will reply "yes they are, you're move".
Because you're using two stars, there are no angles. You need a third star to make an angle. Since you're only using two stars, any arbitrary constellation can be used. You've decided to use the constellation you did because of it's position in the sky, but the same overlays can be made using any two stars from any constellation.

I suspect this will not dissuade you however. So I'll stop here.
 

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
kamalktk said:
Because you're using two stars, there are no angles. You need a third star to make an angle. Since you're only using two stars, any arbitrary constellation can be used. You've decided to use the constellation you did because of it's position in the sky, but the same overlays can be made using any two stars from any constellation.

I suspect this will not dissuade you however. So I'll stop here.

In the case of you and Timble2 the Giza pyramid positions are still one of the following then; arbitrary and without any particular underlying basis (like Zahi Hawass), a very poor rendition of the stars of Orion's Belt (like Robert Bauval) or simple geometric relationships (like John Legon). I simply showed you what I believe to be the true basis for the layout and the chamber positions. You can choose to accept it as plausible or not.

A certain small number of people in the world will see the obvious true solution in my posts, others will see something else or nothing at all. I would actually be very surprised if every person who viewed those images were capable of comprehending the significance of what they were seeing. People have varying levels of intelligence and comprehension. Look at Robert Bauval, for instance. He's a construction engineer, a college graduate, certainly a person considered to be of fairly high intellect, yet he sees in Giza a simple depiction of Orion's Belt. Each person sees what their particular mind is capable off seeing.

You and Timble2 see insignificant non-angles in my images and are perplexed that I would think any of it significant. Obviously I'm not going to share that opinion, but you're welcome to express it. I really have nothing to justify. I showed the images. I'm not in court trying to prove the Egyptians guilty of depicting Pleiades stars. I didn't charge you money to view my images. You've looked, you've seen nothing, now you and Timble2 will go on with your lives wondering what the significance of the Giza pyramid positions could possibly be, or not even caring. I really don't have anything further to discuss with either of you then so see ya.
 

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
Monstrosa said:
I find this to be more convincing than your conjecture.http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/egypt.htm

ETR superfluous code

Oh, I see what you mean. The accuracy is truly devastating. Never mind the fact that Orion is never anywhere near that position in the northern hemisphere, but Saiph is DEAD ON Djedefre's Pyramid. And look how Betelgeuse is right on that step pyramid near Saqqara. Herschel certainly has painstakingly confirmed his amazing theory. Funny how they built the step pyramid right in the Nile flood zone though. Must have been a little trying for the builders, wading in the Nile with those stone blocks and all. I can see why you would prefer Wayne Herschel's ingenious theory over my pathetic excuse for accuracy and plausibility. He was only off by about 4 miles in the case of Djedefre's Pyramid and about 7 miles in the case of the step pyramid. Damn, Herschel is good. Excuse me while I run out and buy his book. This is soooo worth money.

2937sia.png


Now I'll "confirm" Herschel's theory about Aldebaran being at the position of the Red Pyramid. Yup, again devastating accuracy. How can I compete with this guy? He certainly has "conclusively proved" Robert Bauval's Orion Correlation Theory as legitimate, as he stated on his site. Now please tell me, Montrosa, when exactly was it that Orion could be seen from Giza standing on his head so that his belt could match the pyramids? I had to rotate the image in PaintShop a LOT to get it in that position. But perhaps you maintain, like Bauval, that we're supposed to turn the map upside down and view Giza southward. Still none of the other stars match up as Herschel stated and Bauval has to go back in time to about 11,000 BC to get it to match when the belt was on the South meridian. My theory actually works exactly when the pyramids were built. I don't have to postulate that the Egyptians had a time machine, like Bauval does.

I do concede, though, that the builders may very well have purposely used a combination of Pleiades correlations which would closely resemble Orion's Belt, to trick the rubes into thinking that's all it depicted, so that they wouldn't figure out where the secret subterranean chambers are at certain other Pleiades star positions, which I won't reveal here because I don't feel like it. It's possible that Orion's Belt was a secondary consideration though. As I mentioned in another post, they did tend to combine more than one concept in their designs. Only the Pleiades Correlation Theory can EXACTLY explain the pyramid positions though, proving that it was the primary consideration.

vrplp0.png
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
13,311
autonomicus8 said:
..A certain small number of people in the world will see the obvious true solution in my posts, others will see something else or nothing at all. I would actually be very surprised if every person who viewed those images were capable of comprehending the significance of what they were seeing. People have varying levels of intelligence and comprehension...

I really don't have anything further to discuss with either of you then so see ya.
For which read: "I'm right, you're wrong, and you and anyone else who considers me wrong clearly lacks the intelligence to see what's obvious to enlightened ones such as myself, and is therefore not worthy of further interactive debate."


People on here have open minds, generally. Attempts to intellectually bulldoze rarely work - dismissive doesn't normally get far on this forum, likewise condescension. If you truly wish people to engage with your theory - which is what it is, a theory, not an "obvious solution" - then maybe a manner more amenable to debate would glean more of a positive reaction.

You are welcome to postulate such ideas as you wish. Just please don't assume that everyone shares your view, and maybe you could answer constructive criticism and valid queries in the spirit in which they've been asked. Otherwise you may find your presence on this board has a limited span.
 

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
stuneville said:
autonomicus8 said:
..A certain small number of people in the world will see the obvious true solution in my posts, others will see something else or nothing at all. I would actually be very surprised if every person who viewed those images were capable of comprehending the significance of what they were seeing. People have varying levels of intelligence and comprehension...

I really don't have anything further to discuss with either of you then so see ya.
For which read: "I'm right, you're wrong, and you and anyone else who considers me wrong clearly lacks the intelligence to see what's obvious to enlightened ones such as myself, and is therefore not worthy of further interactive debate."


People on here have open minds, generally. Attempts to intellectually bulldoze rarely work - dismissive doesn't normally get far on this forum, likewise condescension. If you truly wish people to engage with your theory - which is what it is, a theory, not an "obvious solution" - then maybe a manner more amenable to debate would glean more of a positive reaction.

You are welcome to postulate such ideas as you wish. Just please don't assume that everyone shares your view, and maybe you could answer constructive criticism and valid queries in the spirit in which they've been asked. Otherwise you may find your presence on this board has a limited span.

Thank you for sharing your interpretation of my words. Can't say it's a very accurate interpretation, but thanks for your psychic insights as to what I am thinking when I write something. Rather an offensive interpretation, though, I must say. Is that your purpose here, to take other peoples' words and interpret them with a completely arbitrary and thoroughly offensive slant? I interpret what you just wrote as an unprovoked personal insult against me and a blatant attempt to incite hatred against me. Whom do I complain to? I thought this was a forum for reasonable discussion, not offensive innuendos. Unless you can specify a forum rule that I have clearly violated, I must politely request that you retract your offensive innuendos and mischaracterizations and apologize.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
13,311
autonomicus8 said:
Thank you for sharing your interpretation of my words.
You're welcome :).
autonomicus8 said:
Can't say it's a very accurate interpretation, but thanks for your psychic insights as to what I am thinking when I write something.
Oh, please don't try to be sarcastic with me.
autonomicus8 said:
Is that your purpose here, to take other peoples' words and interpret them with a completely arbitrary and thoroughly offensive slant?
My purpose on here is to ensure fair play and reasoned debate. Your tone has, as the quotes I used demonstrated, been very dismissive toward (intelligent, open-minded) posters attempting to engage and query aspects of your theories. This interest was answered by you in an abrasive and condesecending manner. I asked you, politely, to maybe couch your replies in a more mutually respectful tone.

Which I shall now do one more time.
 

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
stuneville said:
autonomicus8 said:
Thank you for sharing your interpretation of my words.
You're welcome :).
autonomicus8 said:
Can't say it's a very accurate interpretation, but thanks for your psychic insights as to what I am thinking when I write something.
Oh, please don't try to be sarcastic with me.
autonomicus8 said:
Is that your purpose here, to take other peoples' words and interpret them with a completely arbitrary and thoroughly offensive slant?
My purpose on here is to ensure fair play and reasoned debate. Your tone has, as the quotes I used demonstrated, been very dismissive toward (intelligent, open-minded) posters attempting to engage and query aspects of your theories. This interest was answered by you in an abrasive and condesecending manner. I asked you, politely, to maybe couch your replies in a more mutually respectful tone.

Which I shall now do one more time.

Oh now you're calling me sarcastic. Wow, that's even more offensive than your previous post. I must now request TWO apologies.
 

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
stuneville said:
autonomicus8 said:
Thank you for sharing your interpretation of my words.
You're welcome :).
autonomicus8 said:
Can't say it's a very accurate interpretation, but thanks for your psychic insights as to what I am thinking when I write something.
Oh, please don't try to be sarcastic with me.
autonomicus8 said:
Is that your purpose here, to take other peoples' words and interpret them with a completely arbitrary and thoroughly offensive slant?
My purpose on here is to ensure fair play and reasoned debate. Your tone has, as the quotes I used demonstrated, been very dismissive toward (intelligent, open-minded) posters attempting to engage and query aspects of your theories. This interest was answered by you in an abrasive and condesecending manner. I asked you, politely, to maybe couch your replies in a more mutually respectful tone.

Which I shall now do one more time.

Oh now you're calling me sarcastic. Wow, that's even more offensive than your previous post. I must now request TWO apologies. I was sincerely thanking you for your apparent psychic insights and this is how you reply? Talk about inappropriate.

stuneville;
I asked you, politely, to maybe couch your replies in a more mutually respectful tone

stuneville;
Oh, please don't try to be sarcastic with me.

Is that what you mean by a mutually respectful tone? If I said that to you I would be banned immediately, would I not?
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
13,311
I didn't accuse you of sarcasm. I asked you not to attempt it. As for apologies, you'll be waiting a while.

However, having offered you the chance to maybe moderate your tone twice, I'll instead offer you the chance of being getting an official warning, unless you adopt a more reasonable tone.
 

autonomicus8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
stuneville said:
I didn't accuse you of sarcasm. I asked you not to attempt it. As for apologies, you'll be waiting a while.

However, having offered you the chance to maybe moderate your tone twice, I'll instead offer you the chance of being getting an official warning, unless you adopt a more reasonable tone.

Goodbye. This conversation is over, as is my presence on this lovely little forum of yours. There are actually a few other forums on the Internet. I don't need this kind of disrespect nor will I tolerate it, not from you and not from anyone, period.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
13,311
Cheers then.

I'm not banning you by the way - if you want to come back at some point feel free. But, if flounce you must, you're welcome to do so under your own steam.
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,988
Location
In a Liminal Zone
autonomicus8 said:
You and Timble2 see insignificant non-angles in my images and are perplexed that I would think any of it significant. Obviously I'm not going to share that opinion, but you're welcome to express it. I really have nothing to justify. I showed the images. I'm not in court trying to prove the Egyptians guilty of depicting Pleiades stars. I didn't charge you money to view my images. You've looked, you've seen nothing, now you and Timble2 will go on with your lives wondering what the significance of the Giza pyramid positions could possibly be, or not even caring. I really don't have anything further to discuss with either of you then so see ya.

I meant there's around a 100 pyramids in Egypt, not in Giza,

I don't subscribe to the Orion's belt theory either, it's entertaining in a Chariots of the Gods sort of way, but full of holes, assumptions and cherry-picking.

If you look at the positions of the pyramids on the plateau above the Nile valley it's apparent that the topography of the area largely determined their positions. They were built where they were built to provide spectacular monuments to the power of the king. It's interesting that because of their positioning that from the valley Khafre's pyramid looks around the same size a Khufu's as it's in a more elevated position. Both have natural outcrops deep in their cores - their position is as much to do with geology and geography as much as anything else. You pull in Djedefre's pyramids, sometimes called the lost pyramid because it either collapsed, was unfinished, or was robbed out in ancient times, which isn't really part of the Giza complex. The reign of Djedefre came between Khufu and Khafre.

You bring in Sneferu's bent pyramid - which again isn't part of the Giza pyramid complex - it's around 40 kilometre away - and predates it, but ingnore his Red pyramid a few kilometres away fro. As far as I can see you completely ingnore the step pyramid of Djoser, and the other Saqqara pyramids. Djoser's pyramid has a small temple on it's northern side with a structure, known as serdab, which contains (well it now contains a replica) of the statue of the king with eye-holes to allow his Ka, which could inhabit the statue to see the imperishable stars of the northern sky (i.e. the stars around the pole, which never fall below the horizon. An interesting bit of astroarchaeology that you don't bother with. You're just picking pyramids that suit your preconcieved conclusions. Also if there was some grand plan they built the pyramids in a very strange order.


You can't use the Dendera zodiac as proof of the existence of Taurus as a the same constellation in the Pyramid age - it dates to around 50BC when Egypt had been under Greek influence, with the Ptolemies who'd reigned room for some time (since 305BC). The Greek system of constellations can be traced back to around 350BC. In brief the expanse of time between the pyramid age and the Dendara Zodiac is less than the time between use and the building of the temple at Dendara.

You seem to find significance in the name the Seven Hathors, the Pleiades are a fairly obvious asterism and have names in most cultures, the name doesn't have any more significance than "The Red Horus" which was the Ancient Egyptian name for Mars - there is a tendency for things in the sky to be named for the gods.
 
Top