10,000BC isn't 100,000 years ago.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pyramids of Giza and Orion's belt alignment true?
- Thread starter macfoshizzle
- Start date
macfoshizzle
Member
that calculation was done for around 2550BC.
for 10500 BC, it matches. so it correlates. not just the for the pyramids, but others as well.
that is why i'm asking the question.
It is common for ancient ritual (Egypt included) sites or landmarks to be aligned with star constellations or solar/lunar calendars literally chiseled out of stone and also serving other purposes.
They didn't have google or TV at night, just the stars.
As far as 10k BC, as they say, need the receipts as this is much earlier than we currently have evidence for.
They didn't have google or TV at night, just the stars.
As far as 10k BC, as they say, need the receipts as this is much earlier than we currently have evidence for.
LookAtMeGo
Member
I know how so many always like to look to science for answers with things like this. And science tells us that the erosion on the body of the sphynx is a lot more than the erosion on the head. So if we are to look at the sphynx from a geologists point of view, then it adds a huge amount of credibility to the theory. The erosion on the body is due to rain, a lot of it over a long period of time. It hasnt rained like that in Giza since thousands of years before it was apparently constructed. The head does not have the same kind of erosion. But most just take egyptologists word as gospel about it and that it was all constructed at the same time.
I misread the number then. Still it seems rather unlikely a theory.
ProtomanNeo
Member
There also is other evidence for veneration of the Orion constellation in the region, for example at Nabta Playa.
frankie_baby
Member
I seem to remember watching a documentary about this about 25 years ago, seem to remember them saying one of the pyramids has a hole from the tomb room so the pharoah could jizz at a particular star
I think you're taking it a little too seriously here. They probably patterned it after the 3 brightest stars because they had significance back then. I'm not saying they lined them up perfectly or are older than is believed, just that 2 pyramids in a row with the 3rd slightly offset is pretty consistent with Orion's belt. Maybe it wasn't copied from Orion's at all, but there is an obvious correlation that can be drawn.
uncelestial
Member
Hell no it's not true and accepted. That's way too long ago.
Septimus Prime
Member
What if they built the pyramids a million years ago and just restored them every few thousand years?
I don't think Egyptologists have been able to adequately explain the erosion. They just skip over it.
Which is really frustrating because it could change the entire Egyptian history. But that's probably why it's ignored.
the-pi-guy
Member
This is really a case of putting the cart before the horse. The pyramids don't match.
///PATRIOT
Banned
Op, what if I told you that every building in the world is aligned with at least 1 star in the universe?
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
It doesn't look like they match, but if they did... So what?
Earthbound64
Banned
Then we need to get going on our part.
JonnyDBrit
Member
The differing rates of erosion on the Sphinx is because its material nature isn't consistent throughout the whole work. It's made of bedrock, as in, natural layers built up over time.
As for the Pyramids of the Giza complex, they were not built simultaneously, but in sequence, because you know, they were the tombs of successive Pharaohs. And frankly even if the pyramids were built to 'align' with Orion's Belt, I don't actually see the merit in this meaning they could only have built at X time so as to align precisely. When it came to ancient astronomy and symbolism, 'close enough' was the rule of thumb. So no, not really a strong argument to more than double their age, vs the existing material evidence.
As for the Pyramids of the Giza complex, they were not built simultaneously, but in sequence, because you know, they were the tombs of successive Pharaohs. And frankly even if the pyramids were built to 'align' with Orion's Belt, I don't actually see the merit in this meaning they could only have built at X time so as to align precisely. When it came to ancient astronomy and symbolism, 'close enough' was the rule of thumb. So no, not really a strong argument to more than double their age, vs the existing material evidence.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Only if you think of chronolflow as exerting in two linear dimensions
SallyIsNow
Banned
Earthbound64
Banned
I agree completely with the second half of what you said, but the evidence for water erosion on the Sphynx is pretty compelling. And it isn't due to the multiple types of building materials. Wind erosion looks very different than rain erosion and the base of the Sphynx is consistent with rain erosion.
It really isn't, you should look into Sphinx water erosion hypothesis and Göbekli Tepe, it's very interesting.
I'm well aware of both and my opinion still stands.
BlazinSkatinAxel
Member
You are correct, Daniel Jackson.
LookAtMeGo
Member
The sphynx is carved out of a big ass chunk of limestone. If the erosion on the body of the sphynx is due to water erosion then it makes no sense that there would be no evidence of water erosion on the head.
Most who predate the sphynx would put it somewhere around 5000 - 3100 BC, not 10,000 BC. Except for guys like John Anthony West.
Even dudes like Zahi Hawaas will admit to restoration type shit going on with the head to explain away the difference in erosion. Except it wasnt a restoration, It was VANDALISM!!! BELIEVE!
Most who predate the sphynx would put it somewhere around 5000 - 3100 BC, not 10,000 BC. Except for guys like John Anthony West.
Even dudes like Zahi Hawaas will admit to restoration type shit going on with the head to explain away the difference in erosion. Except it wasnt a restoration, It was VANDALISM!!! BELIEVE!
Neuromancer
Member
I'm pretty sure the predators built them to hunt the xenomorph, the most dangerous prey of all.
JonnyDBrit
Member
It's not multiple types of building materials it's inconsistency in the same material. Naturally layered limestone is kinda annoying like that - it varies in strength as you go up and down.
And honestly, even if we accepted the notion the erosion is down to rain, that does not necessitate that the Sphinx be so drastically older than we currently estimate it to be, if such is assumed to derive from a period of much higher precipitation. Syder's reference to it with regards to a 10000-BC date is silly when most theories regarding such toss on an extra few hundred years - maybe a thousand - to put it in range of the onset of the Sahara's desertification. Not an additional seven or eight thousand.
Then again, I suppose I have a bit of a pet peeve in this regard, where people try to take minor suggestions as indications for massively revamping the timeline and scale of otherwise decently established history. Using Gobekli Tepe as a point of comparison, when its changes in dating come from examining differing areas within the site, not reexamination of the same material, is disingenuous.
I mean, I don't disagree. It's pretty easy to get lost in it though, there are very compelling works on the subject.
Not that I've seen. Its all incredibly reaching and often based on cherry picked pieces of info that are connected to make it seem far more feasible when its just a huge stretch of the imagination that falls apart under scrutiny.
Imagine four balls on the edge of a cliff.
Geologists try to prove the Sphinx is much older, but other geologists prove them wrong.
The last word I heard is that they matched the stones used on the nearby temples, which we know were built during Khafra's reign, to the walls of the pit that the Sphinx is in. So if the pit was created by Khafra...
The last word I heard is that they matched the stones used on the nearby temples, which we know were built during Khafra's reign, to the walls of the pit that the Sphinx is in. So if the pit was created by Khafra...
ErnieMcCracken
Member
Was probably the Orange Pharaoh.
#MEGA
#MEGA
LookAtMeGo
Member
Why not just take materials from an area thats already been quarried?
The sphynx temple was built and attributed to Khafre but the coreblocks were faced with aswan granite. The limestone coreblocks were already weathered. That would go to show that the limestone that had been used had been sitting there for a long ass time in the pit before they were used to build the temples.
Zahi Hawaas is such a blowhard.
Yeah, there's very little actually written about it. And carbon dating is only as good as the carbon one finds ie not stone. Anyways, not sure I buy that they were erected that long ago, although it's not conclusive. Could have been a call back to that time because the earth underwent dramatic changes then.
As an aside, can we leave aliens of this? And it's not a conspiracy theory, just a theory, meanong it's backed by decent evidence whether or not one buys the whole story.
Orthogonal
Member
No Geologist disputes that the erosion is caused by water. They have not proven Dr Schoch wrong in his assessment, but only put forth different theories for the cause of the water erosion than from rainfall. One is from Nile Flooding at certain periods which can cause significant erosion in short time periods. The problem with this theory is that flooding will preferentially erode the base of walls and cause an under-cut erosion at the base. Neither the Sphinx or the quarry walls have any base erosion so flooding is unlikely. The other theory is erosion from a process called Haloclasty, a process where water/moisture (partiularly salt water) soaks into stone and crystalizes and then heat expansion causes rock to flake off. The problem with this theory is that no where else on the Giza platuea shows any sign of this type of erosion and it can't explain why the Sphinx and its quarry would be preferentially eroded over everything else.
Rainfall is the only theory that can adequately explain the evidence and is the only physical evidence to date the Sphinx and would push back its creation to at least 7000 BC if not thousands of years earlier. Eqyptologists date the Sphinx exclusively based on interpretation of Eqyptian writings, and a close examination of the writings connecting the Sphinx to early dynastic Egypt is circumstantial at best. When it comes down to it, the only meaningful retort archeologists have for the rainfall hypothesis is that there was no evidence of Human activity capable of monolithic and precision Stone carving 8,000-12,000 years ago which proponents of a much older Sphinx didn't have an answer too....
That was, until only a few years later when archeologists discovered Gobekli Tepe and completely overturned everything we thought we knew about the rise of ancient civilization and pushed back the first known civilization to 9000 BC. There is now indisputable proof that hunter gatherer's were much more sophisticated than originally thought and capable of monolithic and advanced stone carving capabilities. This doesn't directly prove the Sphinx was carved back then, but it does prove humans had the capability to do it much earlier than Archeologists thought.
The fact that stones from the quarry are used in a Khafra temple proves nothing. Recycling stones from one structure to another was a very common practice.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
The pyramids are pretty universally known, its the Sphinx that is debated about. It has weathering on it that can only be attributed to rain fall, and the last time there was consistent enough rain fall in Egypt would be about 10k years or so ago.
marvelharvey
Member
They're actually giant cat heads.
Earthbound64
Banned
maths
lastplayed
Member
With the timescales involved in dating the structures, if you were trying to determine their age based on stellar alignment, would tectonic plate drift need to be taken into account? With 4,500 years being the low-end estimate on their age, and an average drift rate of 1"/year, that would mean they've shifted at least ~375' from their "original" location. It might not be much, but given how precise their construction was, it might help narrow down the time frame a little bit.
It's complete horseshit.
Even if the three largest Pyramids of Giza actually had the same arrangement as the stars of Orion's Belt at the times and location of their construction (they don't), it's pure coincidence. The concept of Orion as a constellation was not invented yet and had no meaning to the people of the time and place. Not to mention it's just looking at the three largest pyramids and ignoring the others at the same site.
The three largest pyramids of Giza have as much to do with Orion's belt as they do with the Three Stooges.
And no, they're not fucking 12,000 years old.
Even if the three largest Pyramids of Giza actually had the same arrangement as the stars of Orion's Belt at the times and location of their construction (they don't), it's pure coincidence. The concept of Orion as a constellation was not invented yet and had no meaning to the people of the time and place. Not to mention it's just looking at the three largest pyramids and ignoring the others at the same site.
The three largest pyramids of Giza have as much to do with Orion's belt as they do with the Three Stooges.
And no, they're not fucking 12,000 years old.
This is a myth.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked