Rare Book: “106 Dawn of Man”
http://www.gizapyramid.com/cliveross.htm
more http://www.gizapyramid.com/CliveRoss2.htm
http://www.gizapyramid.com/cliveross3.htm
The “perfect” alignment
Contents
1. Orion’s “belt” and the pyramids.
The three stars, forming the Orion belt, are superimposed onto the Giza pyramids, indicating the misalignment of the center pyramid.
2. The alternate theory.
The size ratios for the three large pyramids are compared to the four inner planets.
3. Planet motion.
The three pyramids have an angular separation demonstration the orbital periods for Earth and Mars.
4. Planet distance, and orbital eccentricity.
The distance ratios between the three pyramids are similar to those of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.
5. Locating the Sun.
The location of the Sun is calculated using the three pyramid positions, they representing Venus, Earth, and Mars. The results provide convincing evidence, indicating the ancients understanding planet motion.
6. Conclusion.
7. References.
1 The Orion “belt” and the pyramids.
Egyptologists have always been open to new suggestions or ideas relating to the pyramids, but there is one prerequisite to any theory proposed… provide the evidence and supply the proof!
There are no ancient documents, from the Giza pyramid era, indicating the ancient’s knowing planetary measure or motion, even the names used to identify their wandering gods vary from dynasty to dynasty. The ancients worshiped their gods (stars) and wandering gods (planets), but that is not a convincing factor to indicate they understanding planetary motion.
The Giza plateau has been methodically searched from corner to corner and end to end, stones overturned or removed, chambers invaded and their walls electronically examined. Unfortunately, not one solitary piece of evidence has been discovered, explaining why the ancients built the Giza pyramid complex.
My fist serious encounter with the Giza complex occurred in the year 1986. Having no knowledge in Egyptology, archeology or astronomy was a great setback for my “hobbyist” approach in attempting to solve the Giza pyramid secrets.
I have always found astronomy most intriguing, and many evenings would be occupied reading and viewing replica rolex submariner orologi “closeup” photographs of our planets Earth, Venus, Mars, and the Moon. In the interim, Earthorbiting telescopes were becoming the new astronomer’s tools, providing a deeper view into the universe, and revealing additional cosmic events. However, my interest in archeology and Egyptian studies remained low, to say the least.
During my second year studies, I began to realize that the Giza designer(s) had placed the three large pyramids in a most accurate location with reference to each other, and Orion’s belt was a significant contributing factor to the ancient’s cause.
Working handinhand with many postgraduate students at the University of Toronto and York University of Toronto, the system used by the ancient was unraveled. Orion’s belt was the “key” to unlocking the Giza mystery, but there was one major downfall to my theory. I received the most stunning setback when discovering that the three large pyramids at Giza were not positioned in the exact format when compared to the three stars in Orion’s belt (Ill. 1).
Illustration 1.
An enlarged view of the Orion “belt” compared to the three Giza pyramid locations. Aligning the outer stars with the outer pyramids indicates the center star misaligning with the center pyramid.
It requires little geometric knowledge to realize, from the above, that the center star in Orion’s belt is misaligned with the center pyramid. Many photographs have been presented to demonstrate this theory, but they were taken with cameras having larger telescopic lenses. Similar to the above photograph, they are overmagnified, giving the “illusion” of the three stars covering a greater area than we actually observe. If one were to view these three stars in the evening skies then their small size it is most apparent, they are much smaller than illustrated.
Adding to this discrepancy are the other numerous tristar combinations also fitting into the threepyramid geometry replica rolex gmt master ii. Why would one insist these pyramids represent Orion’s belt, yet overlook other possibilities for their design?
Irrational statements are constantly being presented in an attempt to justify this hypothesis. Naturally, the first assumed reason for the misalignment is the ancient’s inability to measure accurately; they were unable to calculate the true pyramid positions on a sloping hillside, yet evidence indicates the ancients being phenomenally accurate in measure. To compensate for this first misleading statement, it is proposed that the ancients “moved” the center pyramid due to foundation difficulties. But the pyramid foundations are sound, equally so is the hillside they are constructed on.
Regardless of these “slight” oversights, we are expected to consider the theory correct and the builders erred in construction.
Egyptologists fully agree that the ancients observed the various constellations on the “horizon”, noting their annual appearance/disappearance. This horizon is termed the plane of the ecliptic; the location of the annular twelve zodiacs. The plane of the ecliptic is the path traveled by their wandering gods, allowing them to travel from one zodiac constellation to the next, but Orion is not on the plane of the ecliptic!
The debate continues and the Orion theorists are loosing ground.
2. The alternate theory.
There is a vast amount of gained knowledge contained within the Giza pyramids. By placing the structures in predesignated locations and building each pyramid to a specific size and height, allowed the ancients to convey many messages for those who could realize their intent.
Where we have failed, is our inability to focus directly at the objects presented to us…. the three large pyramids !!
An old cliché states…”We cannot see the forest for the trees”. The pyramids do direct us to the Orion constellation, however the ancients left numerous “clues” for us to consider also.
Primarily they focused on something much closer than the Orion constellation …the inner planets of our solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars!
By some remarkable coincidence, the three pyramid bases are directly proportional to the physical size for these four inner planets. The questions to be asked are; how could the ancients know planet dimensions, and replica dita sunglasses how did they present four various sized planets using only three pyramid structures?
Astronomers should have realized the first indicator; it is the physical relationship between P1, P2, and P3 when compared to Earth, Venus, Mars, and Mercury respectively (Ill. 2).
Illustration 2.
Using P1 to represent the diameter of Earth, then the physical size ratios for the remaining three inner planets are compared to the three large Giza pyramids.
This pyramid/planet comparison must be the greatest coincidence ever encountered. The two largest pyramids have a size ratio very similar to Earth and Venus, while the third and smallest pyramid equals the “average” size ratio for the two smallest planets, Mars and Mercury [ (234.5+168.1)/2 = 201.1 ]. If the ancients were aware of planet sizes, then the next major issue to be resolved is to discover their system used for measure.
Although we have known the approximate size of these objects for many years, their accurate dimensions were not known until astronomers developed electronic radardetection instruments in the early 1950’s. Therefore, the ancients could not have known these measures. However, there are several other unexplained pyramid characteristics relating directly to these planets.
The small pyramid (P3) is the only pyramid having a substantial covering of granite angular casing stones at its base. It is believed that the granite stones covered replica rolex datejust ii only the base, upward to approximately onehalf of the complete pyramid. The balance of the exterior facing continues with stepped limestone blocks, but there is no definite location indicating where the builders stopped using angular granite casing stones (Ill. 3).
Illustration 3.
Comparing the size ratios for Mars and Mercury to the possible location where the pyramid builders ceased using red angular granite stone.
When drawing the two circular dimensions for Mars and Mercury, a square can be inscribed within the radius of the smaller circle, showing the approximate location where granite casing stones were no longer used.
Were the ancient designers attempting to emphasize, the two distinct sizes for the two small red planets orbiting our sun?
If the red colored base for P3 indicates the planet Mars, then it could explain why the larger center pyramid has its upper portion covered with imported bright white Tura limestone. The ancients imported this pure white limestone from the eastern quarries of the Nile River, and it is only used extensively on the upper portion of P2, the pyramid similar in size ratio to Venus.
Was the Tura limestone chosen with intent, to indicating P2 representing Venus, it being the most brilliant (white) wandering god?
Viewing P1, the largest pyramid ever constructed, its exterior is void of angular casing stones. Built using the limestone quarried from the pyramid site, the finished color and the pyramid itself, could represent Earth rising from the very ground that supports it (Ill.4).
Illustration 4.
The three pyramids after completion. Did the ancients choose various stone materials to depict the inner planets and their associated color?
3. Planet motion.
Although it is improbable for the ancients to have known planet sizes, they definitely understood planet motion, and it is the following information that eliminates the Orion belt theory from being the main focal point of the Giza design.
The ancients were fully aware of the exact angle formed by the three Orion stars, but their main objective was to emphasize planet motion. They presumed we would follow their footsteps and continue studying astronomy in a manner identical to theirs. Unfortunately, we advanced different than anticipated; we created the studies in archeological science.
Archeologists and Egyptologists are only examining ancient artifacts. If we want to uncover the true reason for the Giza complex, we must use what the designers used. The ancient’s beliefs were entrenched in astronomy, therefore the average Egyptologists should follow suite. They should possess basic knowledge in planetary and interstellar motion, a subject they most often overlook, or completely neglect. The most obvious measure is to determine how far Mars or Venus orbits around the Sun in one Earth year; the first and most basic ratio the ancients would record.
Knowing Mars orbits the Sun in 686.98 days, and Earth in 365.25 days, then Mars travels 191.4 degrees around the Sun in one Earth year. Remarkably, the three misaligned pyramids have an angular separation equaling 191.6 degrees, or the identical angular distance Mars travels in one Earth year. (Ill. 5).
Illustration 5.
The angular separation between the three pyramids is identical to the angular distance Mars travels in one complete orbit of Earth.
To demonstrate this motion, we imagine the center location of P2 representing the Sun, and allow P1 (representing Earth) to complete one orbit around the Sun, then returning to its original location.
During this interval, P3 (representing Mars) will travel 191.4 degrees in orbit and align at the same location as P1 (Ill. 6).
Illustration 6.
Earth, represented by P1, is rotated one complete orbit around the Sun (P2). During this interval, Mars (P3) travels along its orbital path and aligns in the same location as Earth.
The ancients set the three pyramids at an exact angular distance, demonstrating how far Mars orbits the Sun in one Earth year. The designer(s) believed we would automatically realize their intent; instead, we looked in the complete opposite direction.
Our reason for doing so is our strong conviction of the monuments being no more than tombs built for the deceased kings. Perhaps we should investigate our recent historical records, and determine who actually proposed this story of fantasy.
Is it possible that the ancients knew planet motion to an exact measure, and are we willing to admit our first assumption of burial chambers possibly being incorrect?
4. Planet distance, and orbital eccentricity.
Section i) Three characteristics of our neighboring planets have been introduced: planet size, color, and motion. The only other common feature to be added is their related distances to each other.
Those who understand basic astronomy may have noticed the previous illustrations showing the three pyramids substituted by three planets, but they are out of order; Venus is not between the two planets Earth and Mars.
When measuring their distances from the Sun, Venus is the closest followed by Earth then Mars. Venus is represented by P2, the center pyramid; therefore Earth and Venus are in reverse locations. However, the ancients had many other stories to tell.
The illustration below shows the average orbital distance from the Sun for the three planets: Venus, Earth, and Mars (Ill. 7).
Illustration 7.
The accurate measured distances for Venus, Earth, and Mars from the Sun.
By placing Earth (P1) and Venus (P2) in reverse order, it invites the inquisitive to investigate the reason why. When fully realized, it confirms the ancient’s complete understanding of planet orbital distances.
Normally, astronomers compare the individual distance for each planet from the Sun, but the ancients elected to use the distance to our neighboring planets with reference to each other!
From the above measures, the ratio equals (78.34/41.39) = 1.89, from below, we witness the same ratio between the three pyramids at Giza (Ill. 8).
Illustration 8.
Calculated from Petrie’s accurate measures in inches, the distances between the three pyramids produce a ratio equaling 1.92.
The Giza pyramid locations are positioned using the measures recorded by W. F. Petrie. The distances are measured in inches, producing a ratio equaling 1.92. Comparing this ratio to the distance ratio between Venus, Earth, and Mars (1.89), then the ancient erred by a mere 1.5%.
The following section will explain why this small discrepancy exists.
Section ii) Not until the early 1600’s AD did astronomers understand elliptical orbital paths for our planets. This concept was first realized and introduced by Johannes Kepler, the famous German mathematician/astronomer, when he proclaimed his first law of planet motion…”Each planet moves around the Sun in an orbit that is an ellipse, with the Sun at the focal point of the ellipse…”.
All nine planets, within our solar system, have elliptical orbits, and Earth is no exception.
Pluto, the furthest planet from the Sun, has the most severe elliptical orbit, followed by Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun. Venus, the second planet from the Sun, has a nearperfect circular orbit. The elliptical orbit is an individual characteristic for each planet, independent of its distance from the Sun.
The actual orbital paths for the first three planets from the Sun: Mercury, Venus, and Earth are shown in illustration 9, and 10 below.
Illustration 9.
The elliptical paths for the first three planets from the Sun, showing the large eccentric orbit for Mercury (0.206) compared to Venus (0.007), and Earth (0.016).
Illustration 10.
Measuring from the Sun; the maximum, minimum, and average distances to Mercury are compared to the average distances to Venus and Earth.
When the physical sizes for the planets were compared to the three pyramids, the small pyramid (P3) demonstrated the average size for the two small planets Mercury and Mars. Also, it was proposed that the designers covered only the bottom section of P3 with granite casing stones, confirming this structure representing the two small red planets.
From illustration 8, we see the pyramids set into place, indicating the average distances between Venus, Earth, and Mars. The discrepancy in ratio measure is 1.5%, and many could claim this to be coincidental. But the designers were also attempting to indicate their gained knowledge of elliptical orbits for planets, a measure, and concept not realized until Kepler’s discovery.
The most difficult problem the designers had to resolve was how to arrange the three pyramids to demonstrate both the average and max/min distance for a planet from the Sun…. they were restricted to only one solution!
Knowing all distance ratios to the inner planets, they chose two ratios of almost equal value.
From the above measures, shown in illustration 10, the distance ratio between Mercury, Earth and Venus, when Mercury is furthest from the Sun, is (79.76/41.39) = 1.927. From Petrie’s measures the ratio is 1.92; the identical ratio demonstrated by the three pyramids ! (Ill. 11).
Illustration 11.
Substituting Mars with the planet Mercury, the ratio of planet distances from Earth, Venus, and Mercury is within 0.22% of modernday measure.
Not only is the ratio between these three planets more accurate in measure (within 0.22%, compared to the 1.5% error), the pyramids also represent the planet’s sizes in their correct order from the Sun…Venus (P2) is between Earth (P1) and Mercury (P3)
5. Locating the Sun.
We have now been introduced to the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars and their individual characteristics are displayed using ingenious techniques.
P2 was used as a double function; it represents the planet Venus in size, color, and the distance ratio to Earth, also the location of the Sun to illustrate planet motion between Earth and Mars.
The designers realized we would eventually understand these measures, and left a simple astronomy question for us to solve. However, we would never understand the question unless we were verse in astronomy, and the question forces us to break away from our normal assumption of planet locations.
Although we perceive these planets relative to their distances from the Sun, the problem to resolve is….
At what point in orbit are the planets positioned to represent the exact angular and distance ratios as the pyramids indicate if P1, P2, and P3 represent Earth, Venus, and Mars respectively? Therefore, Venus must be located between Earth and Mars.
The question is simple, but cannot be answered unless we understand fully the true distances to the planets and their orbital path around the Sun.
Using computeraided design (CAD), the average orbital paths are drawn to today’s most accurate measures (Ill. 12).
Illustration 12.
Using the measures recorded by Petrie and the average orbital paths for Venus, Earth, and Mars, the three pyramids are positioned as shown. The three pyramids are placed on their associated orbital paths; a most precise astronomical measure is discovered…
The red line, drawn from P1 to P3, is perfectly “tangential” to the orbital path of Venus, a remarkable display of astronomical knowledge.
The previous pages introduced planet distance ratios, resulting in a 1.5% and 0.22% error in measure. The above illustration shows Venus, Earth, and Mars on their associated orbital paths, with a line drawn tangential from P1 to P3, and intersecting the circle representing the orbital path of Venus. The accuracy is stunning, having a discrepancy in measure less than 0.01% from perfect. What must be realized is the tolerance of the data input for the planet orbital distances actually exceed this discrepancy. Therefore, the measures can be considered perfect.
The three large pyramids at Giza were definitely built in precise locations to correlate with the orbital paths and distances for Earth and our three closest neighbors: Mercury, Venus, and Mars.
6. Conclusion:
There are over two hundred steps to the apex of Khufu’s pyramid (P1); we have taken but only a few.
The measured distance between each pyramid is known, likewise are the orbital locations for our inner planets. There are no angular or numerical adjustments, and these measures are entered as supplied. If the ancients knew these facts, then we are confronted with the greatest issue ever to be resolved. It would prove that the dimension of Earth was known to the Egyptians, but leaves us with the question; how did they compare the physical size of our planet to the other three inner planets?
Egyptologists, who dedicate their time and effort, cannot be total responsible for discovering all from our ancient past, nor do we have the right to ask them to decide who is correct or incorrect.
Until all evidence is provided, they can only consider the many alternate theories and continuously assume. Their science has advanced tremendously over the past several decades, and the gradual changing “school of thought” from recent past is most noticeable. However, it must also be noticed that our inquisitive minds tend to expand, as our world tends to shrink.
7. References:
“106” The Dawn of Man, 1999, sbe…………..Clive Ross
Larousse Astronomy, 1987..………..…………Philippe de la Cotardiere
CLIVE ROSS’ RESEARCH
How the ancients designed the Giza Complex
Presented to the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE 2001 annual meeting, PRI, USA)
Contents:
1 Linear and angular dimensions for the three large pyramids at Giza, Egypt.
(Calculated by Sir W. Flinders Petrie)
2 Linear distances to each pyramid.
(Calculated by Sir W Flinders Petrie and confirmed by J. H. Cole)
3 New format and dimensions for the Giza complex.
(The site coordinates are rotated to accommodate the south side of Khufu’s pyramid.
This represents Earth’s possible eastwest orientation during construction.)
4 Linear alignment involving the three pyramids.
(Basic geometric analysis indicates the misalignment of the three pyramids at Giza)
5 Linear alignment, including a circular pyramid format.
(Closer investigation reveals the intended geometry required to align the three pyramids)
6 Extended circular and triangular development, utilizing the complex.
(A “mirror” image of the pyramid complex indicates advanced knowledge in geometry)
7 The third circle and the 2:1 ratio revealed.
(Three large circles are related to each other mathematically.
Two circles demonstrate the identical ratio equal to the two large pyramids)
8 Relationship to the “Sphinx”, “valley temples” and “boat pits”.
9 The “mirror” image for the complex with Earth’s angular tilt and the number pi revealed.
1. Linear and angular dimensions for the three large pyramids at Giza, Egypt.
Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie (18521942), a man who devoted most of his mature life in search for the truth; a man who had no former education in the field of Egyptology, became the first Egyptological Chair in Britain.
Singlehanded, this gentleman created a new approach to Egyptian archeology by dissecting archeological sites in a scientific and systematic manner. His tools for measure were calibrated to the most accurate standard. The linear measuring instruments used were based on the English inch, and meticulously he divided each into decimal format.
His measures have been challenged on several occasions, however in 1925 AD his calculations were confirmed to be true within one inch, when the Egyptian Government Survey Department appointed J. H. Cole to perform this confirming survey.
There are three large pyramids at the Giza site, and to eliminate confusion, the largest (Khufu’s Pyramid) is referred to as P1, followed by the center and almost equal in height being P2, leaving the third and smallest pyramid noted as P3.
Petrie encountered difficulty while measuring the north end and west side of P3, resulting in neither a true length of measure for the north side, or the azimuth with reference to the west side. To accommodate, the average measure has been applied (bracketed) to complete the dimensions for this pyramid (Chart 1 and Ill. 1).
From Petrie, the length measures and individual azimuth for each pyramid are as follows:
P1
Length
Azimuth
North
9069.4
3′ 20″
East
9067.7
3′ 57″
South
9069.5
3′ 41″
West
9068.6
3′ 54″
P2
Length
Azimuth
North
8471.9
5′ 31″
East
8475.2
6′ 13″
South
8476.9
5′ 40″
West
8475.5
4′ 21″
P3
Length
Azimuth
North
4153.6
+16′ 48″
East
4149.2
+12′ 23″
South
4157.8
+12′ 57″
West
4153.9
(+14′ 03″)
(INCHES)
Chart 1.
Sir William Petrie’s measures for the three large pyramids at Giza, Egypt
Illustration 1.
Sir William Petrie’s measures for the three pyramids on the Giza Plateau, Egypt.
2. Linear distances to each pyramid:
Not excluding the works by J. H. Cole and the Egyptian Survey Department, the following measures indicate the center location for these three large pyramids on site.
North – South East – West
Center of P1 to center of P2 13932 13166
Center of P2 to center of P3 15170 9450
Center of P1 to center of P3 29102 22616
(Converted to English inches)
Illustration 2.
J. H. Cole confirmed Petrie’s measures for the pyramids, with reference to each other.
3. New format and dimensions for the Giza complex:
From the above illustrations, the minor discrepancies in azimuth measure are most evident. However, when viewing P3 compared to P1 and P2, its four sides are drastically misaligned with our true celestial coordinates. This issue prompted an investigation into analyzing the possibility that the builders may have constructed the smaller pyramid further from the true northsouth axis with intent.
Before construction commenced, the foundation for P3 required little preparation; an observation noted by Petrie while surveying this structure. P3 is positioned in the most ideal area within the complex, yet the larger foundations for both P1 and P2 involved extensive engineering skills to prepare.
The two extremely large and complex pyramids are built directing us closer to true north than the smaller pyramid. Did the designers misalign P3 for us to consider viewing the pyramid complex “regardless” of our present measure for true north, and only compare their distances to each other?
Since we cannot verify Earth’s axial motion over the past 5,000 years, we cannot assume that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids “offset” from true north. If we consider Earth’s present true north direction “irrelevant”, then a new survey position can be selected with reference to any given side from the three pyramids. The issue to be resolved is; what side do we choose as the reference?
Although true north can be calculated from celestial observations, it requires full knowledge of Earth’s daily orbital position with respect to the Sun and the stars being observed. There is a far simpler procedure to measure Earth’s axis utilizing the Sun’s rays. The Sun rises from the east then sets in the west, and the ancient Egyptians built obelisks for observing the shadows cast by these monoliths. Using this basic ancient monitoring technique for the Sun, prompted this writer to implement the eastwest coordinate for the south side of P1, it “possibly” being the designers true reference line.
Using computer aided drafting (CAD), the complete site is rotated showing the south side of P1 aligned with east to west (Ill. 3).
Illustration 3
A new dimension format is created by choosing the south side of P1 to represent the designer’s true reference line for Earth’s eastwest axis.
4. Linear alignment involving the three pyramids.
The debate continues, whether the pyramids are built in a haphazard fashion, or geometrically aligned. However, a straight line, marked L1, appears to eliminate any alignment possibility (Ill. 4).
The single and closest alignment, from all linear combinations, is demonstrated when a line is drawn from the southwest corner of P1 to the northwest corner of P3. This line passes close to, but not actually intersecting the northeast corner of P2. From this observation, it is obvious for us to safely assume that the Giza complex involves three pyramids positioned in “random” locations.
L1, the single line drawn from P1 to P3, is the basic evidence used by those disbelieving the existence of geometric alignments within the Giza complex. Unfortunately, it has become the “barrier” in debate for those attempting to prove otherwise.
Illustration 4.
A single line (L1) indicates the misalignment of the three pyramids, while a second line almost intersects three corner locations, missing the northeast corner of P2 by several meters.
5. Linear alignment, including a circular pyramid format.
Where we have failed is our assuming the ancients not having gained advanced mathematical and geometric skills. However, Egyptian sculptures and art forms were far advanced for this era in ancient history, and sculpturing requires geometrical mathematics. We continue focusing on the mathematical complexity utilized in their art form, yet we avoid the mathematical implications within the pyramids.
Each structure has a square base, but true geometry is not restricted to squares; it also implements triangles and circles. By drawing the diagonal lines from each corner of the pyramids, their centers are located. These diagonal lines represent triangles, while the intersect location can be assigned as the center point for a circle inscribed within the squares.
The south side of P1 was elected as the reference line by choice, knowing that the ancients used the Sun for daily measure of time and direction, and the Sun is circular.
By applying an inscribed circle to each pyramid, a second attempt demonstrates a complete different set of linear alignments (Ill. 5).
From illustration 4, it was demonstrated how one line almost aligns with one corner from each pyramid; when the same line is drawn tangent to the circle C3, it intersect the corners for the two large pyramids perfectly.
Illustration 5.
Inscribing circles within the squares provides evidence of geometrical alignments between the three pyramids and the tangents to the circles C1 and C3.
The entrances to the pyramid passages are located on the lower north face of each structure, and their locations from ground level vary considerably. Another oddity is their position being offset from center; there are no coherent theories explaining why the ancients elected to place the passages at various distances from the northsouth axis. When these locations are connected linearly, then we witness two additional geometric correlations (Ill. 6).
Illustration 6.
Two geometric lines indicate the entrance locations for the three pyramids.
6. Extended circular and triangular development, utilizing the complex.
In April 2000 AD, Mr. M. Kodera of Japan introduced to the ARCE 2000 convention a proposal suggesting that the complete Giza pyramid complex was mathematically predesigned prior to construction.
His means for demonstration included the Sphinx and a “mirror” image of the lines drawn from the dimensioned pyramid locations. The theory is most impressive, and the mathematical aspect correlates within inches of Petrie’s true measures; this minor error instigated a closer review of his findings.
The following illustrates Mr. Kodera’s proposal, including the Sphinx, boat pits, valley temples, and the main causeway on site.
NOTE: Precise dimensional locations for these additional structures were not available at the time of this writing. From scaled drawings, produced by the Survey of Egypt, they are positioned to the greatest possible accuracy (Ill. 7).
Illustration 7.
A “mirror” image triangle formed using the south side of P1 representing Earth’s true eastwest axis; included are the Sphinx, valley temples, main causeway, and boat pits.
L1 was the original line introduced, and its mirror image created to the east of the complex. It can be noted how L1 intersects the center portion of the Sphinx, then continuing through the southern valley temple. It may also be noted how the main causeway ends abruptly on the horizontal line drawn from P2.
Illustration 8 demonstrates other unique geometric formations within this newly formed triangle.
Two vertical lines are drawn in the south direction from P1 and P2 to the horizontal line formed by P3; their intersects are marked as J1 and J2.
From J2, a circle is drawn having a radius from J2 to the southeast corner of P2, and noted as C4. This circle intersects the southern corners of P2 and both western corners of P3, a perfect geometrical formation, using circular geometry (Illus. 8).
Illustration 8.
Circle C4 has a center location (J2) forming a circumference intersecting the southern corners of P2 and the western corners of P3.
Did the designers elect to utilize the corner positions for these two pyramids to demonstrate their geometric knowledge? This clearly indicates the precise geometrical locations for P2 and P3, but an imagined triangle design was required to reveal the center position for C4. This may provide an answer to the possible reason why P3 was constructed offset from true north more than the two larger pyramids; it actually prompts the inquisitive to investigate various locations for measurement references.
In an attempt to confirm the designer’s intentions, an additional circle is drawn from J1 to the southeast corner of P1, and marked C5 (Illus. 9).
Now it is most evident that geometry was implemented to position the three large pyramids on site. Circle C5 intersects the southern corners of P1; similar to C4, it also passes the western corners of P3. The designers duplicated this mathematical circular arrangement in their original planning.
Illustration 9.
A second circle (C5) is drawn using J1 as the center reference location, having a circumference intersecting the southern corners of P1. This circle also cuts through the western corners of P3.
7. The third circle and the 2:1 ratio revealed.
Although C4 and C5 intersect the west side of P3, there still remains a possible coincidence. However, one additional circle is most obvious to construct, and we are guided to this circle by the extents forming the “mirror” image triangle.
The original three circles (C1, C2 and C3) were inscribed utilizing the square pyramid bases; now a third large circle (C6) is drawn using the three point locations formed by L1 and the two secondary lines L4 and L1 (Illus. 10).
The remarkable aspect to C6 is the size ratio compared to C4; it is exactly twice the diameter of C4. These two circles have a size ratio equal to 2:1, yet their center locations are completely unrelated to each other (Chart 2).
From chart 2, an additional phenomenon is recognized; the size ratio between C1 and C2, formed from the largest pyramids on site, is identical to the ratio for the two large circles C5 and C6 respectively (1.07:1).
Illustration 10.
Using the three points formed by the “mirror” image triangle, a third large circle is inscribed (C6). Comparing circle C6 to circle C4 produces a 2:1 ratio.
C1
C2
C3
Measure
9,070
8,477
4,158
C1
9,070
1
0.935
0.458
C2
8,477
1.070
1
0.491
C3
4,158
2.181
2.039
1
C5
C6
C4
Measure
49918
46716
23432
C5
49,918
1
0.936
0.469
C6
46,716
1.069
1
0.502
C4
23,432
2.130
1.994
1
Chart 2.
The extrapolated dimensions are listed for each circle, demonstrating the mathematical ratios between the three pyramid circles: C1, C2 and C3. These ratios are then compared to the ratios for C4, C5, and C6.
To incorporate these circular elements, within the Giza complex, required advanced knowledge in mathematical geometry. However, without computer aided drafting programming, their designed measures may have escaped detection indefinitely.
Before venturing further, we must consider why the designers would chose a 2:1 ratio within the pyramid complex design. Since three pyramids are constructed, then a 3:1 ratio would prove more convincing.
It is obvious that the 2:1 ratio is being presented to us, but only after discovering this circular geometry, and realizing the designer’s built several other indicators to confirm their intent, as follows:
There are the two large pyramids compared to one smaller pyramid, or simply stated, two pyramids verses one pyramid (2:1). Introduced are the two boat pits and two valley temples. Although it is not illustrated, there is a poorly constructed causeway leading from P3, in the east direction, toward other smaller temples, but no causeway was constructed for P1, therefore, there are two causeways.
The most well known demonstration for this ratio is the King’s chamber within P1; its rectangular shape has sides measuring 20 cubits by 10 cubits, another 2:1 ratio. The designers are indicating their primary objective being to emphasize the number two; it is observed throughout the complete complex.
We are intelligent individuals; it is for us to investigate deeper into the complex and discover the reason why.
9. The “mirror” image for the complete complex with Earth’s angular tilt and the number pi revealed.
Three addition structures have been introduced, showing or indicating mirrorimage mathematics; what have not been analyzed are the three pyramids themselves. The illustration below demonstrates the location for P2 and P3 when their transferred image is also included (Illus. 13).
Illustration 13.
Similar to line L1, the “mirror” image of P2 and P3 are transferred to the east side. The vertical line drawn from P2 passes through the Sphinx and intersects L1 at the exact center of the sculpture.
The northsouth axial line, drawn from P2, cuts through the direct center portion of the Sphinx, remarkably, it also intersects L1 at this very location. The probability for these two lines intersecting at this location is extremely small. Combining this geometric event with others previously introduced gives greater support to the concept that the Giza site has been prepared using advanced mathematical knowledge.
Referring to the initial proposal that the south side of P1 was prepared by aligned it east to west; the designers actually confirm this in the complete format, by utilizing two of the newly formed circles.
Illustration 14 demonstrates a line (L5) drawn from the center location of C4, through the center of C6 and continuing to the frontal section of the Sphinx. The remarkable aspect of this newly formed line is the angular measure with reference to L4 (23.44 degrees); it is equivalent to Earth’s angular tilt with respect to the Sun (23.433 degrees).
Illustration 14.
Line L5, drawn from C4 through C6, continues and intersects the horizontal line of the Sphinx, located between the constructed “paws”. The angle formed by L4 and L5 is 23.44 degrees, equal to Earth’s angular tilt (23.433 degrees).
The above illustrations confirm why the builders elected to construct the Sphinx where positioned; it confirms their wanting us to expand the dimensions for the Giza complex using “mirror” image mathematics.
The original line L1 is the single line used by archeologists and Egyptologists to confirm that the three pyramids at Giza are not geometrically aligned. However, it was illustrated how C4 intersects the corner points of P2 and P3. This same circle is mathematically associated with C6, resulting in a 2:1 ratio.
A circle drawn tangential to the three sides of the formed triangle, created the smaller circle C7. From chart 4, we note how the three circular ratios compare to each other.
C4
C6
C7
Measure
23,457
46,716
14,868
C4
23,457
1
1.992
0.634
C6
46,716
0.502
1
0.318
C7
14,868
1.578
3.142
1
Chart 4.
The measures and ratios between the three circles C4, C6, and C7
From Chart 4, the size ratio between for C6 and C7 is 3.142:1, the numerical value for the number pi measured to three decimal places. The angle measure between L1 replica gucci sunglasses and the eastwest direction is 52.09 degrees. To draw two circles having a ratio of 3.141592654:1, and the smaller circle positioned within to form the triangle as shown, the angular measure is 52.10 (0.02% error)….no other angle will produce this ratio !!
These three circles were specifically designed within the Giza complex to indicate the builder(s) full knowledge of circular measure.
The formula for calculating the circumference of a circle is 2 times the number pi, and we are shown their ingenious mathematical method used by incorporating the circular ratios of 2:1 and pi:1.
10. Conclusion.
Over two thousand five hundred years have elapsed since the religious sector in Greece declared that all revolved around Earth. It was a concept that created friction between the intellectual philosophers and common man.
….Too difficult to understand, therefore impossible to perceive.
Are we continuing this identical ideology, by applying mythical and legendary events to realistic replica rolex datejust ii and/or factual evidence? Are we to continue displaying our arrogant attitude and supremacy in knowledge, an attitude declaring that others before us could not have known what we are learning today?
We have much to learn, and the above paper is no more than the first and most basic step to unraveling the true reason why the ancients constructed the Giza pyramids. The designers had a higher intelligence level than we assume possible. For over four millennia they successfully concealed this information from us, remaining openly and daringly visible to all who visit.
Coincidences occur frequently, but not to the extent as displayed from the above proposal. The Giza complex is a mathematically designed array of stone monuments; no intellectual issues that can alter this simple fact.
The time has arrived; we must begin to open our eyes, ears, and mind; failure to do so will only prove our continuing journey along the pathway of ignorance.
Petrie was not an Egyptologist when he first visited Egypt, yet his systematic approach in archeology continues to this day.
Similar was JeanFrancois Champollion, the first to decode ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. He replica rolex daytona uhren dedicated fourteen years of his life, attempting to unlock the stories and historical events held within the limited supply of ancient Egyptian papyrus script. Unfortunately, the hand of death reached out prematurely for this young man, while he witnessed his compiled notes and findings being prepared for first publication.
Champollion was neither an archeologist nor an Egyptologist; he was a Petrie, a Davidson, and a Lockyer. These individuals did not go “against the grain” of Egyptology, they simply assisted those who were confused or lost for reasoning.
We must ask ourselves…do we know the truth, or are we lost for reasoning?
11. References.
Paper by M. Kodera, Comet Research Institute. [Presented to the 51st annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE 2000)].
The pyramids and Temples replica rolex daytona orologi of Gizeh, W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1883.
Discovering Ancient Egypt, R.F. MCKenty, 1997
General Map of the Giza Necropolis, Survey of Egypt
The Pyramids of Egypt, I.E.S. Edwards, 1988 revised pbe.
“106” The Dawn of Man, C. Ross, 1999 pbe.
CLIVE ROSS’ RESEARCH
The royal cubit and the cubit measure.
Contents
1. The royal cubit and the cubit compared to the English inch.
Introduction to the mysterious design of the royal cubit and cubit.
2. Rightangle triangle formed from the royal cubit and the cubit.
Both styled cubits are positioned to form a rightangle triangle and the hypotenuse measured.
3. Comparing the triangle formation with the planets Earth and Mars.
The triangle is set onto the illustrated orbital paths for Earth and Mars.
4. The calculated location where Mars and Earth would align.
The planet alignment ratio for Mars and Earth dictate their alignment location.
5. The introduction to Venus and the numbers 28 and 62.
Measuring from Earth’s first location to the alignment of Mars, a line is drawn tangential to the orbit of Venus.
6. A final examination of the two cubit measures.
The ancient’s built, within the two cubit measures, the orbital periods for Mars, Earth, and the Moon.
7. Conclusion.
8. References.
1 The royal cubit and the cubit compared to the English inch.
The London Museum in England has in its possession several samples of the ancient Egyptian measuring device, known to Egyptologists and archeologists as the “royal” cubit. The difference between the royal cubit measure and its counterpart the cubit is the number of divisions for each instrument.
The royal cubit has twentyeight segments, referred to as “fingers”, while the cubit has twentyfour segments. The reason for these two distinct measures remains a mystery, but Egyptologists realize their difference in length being four fingers, representing a “palm” of measure by the ancients. Dividing both styles by four, results in the royal cubit comprised of seven palms and the cubit having six.
The daily use of the royal cubit slowly lost ground to the cubit, until finally succumbing to obsolescence during the preChristian era. Ironically, this coincides with the Romans introducing their mile/yard/foot/inch measuring system.
Whenever the Roman Empire expanded into acclaimed territories, roads and structures were built using their newly acquired measure. The Roman army spearheaded north toward the European and Baltic areas, eventually crossing the North Sea into Britain, and with them the introduction to the “foot”.
After the Romans departed from Britain, the foot/inch measure became standard throughout the land. However, over the course of many centuries, a discrepancy of standards developed, not only within Britain, but also between their trading European neighbors. World trade was foremost and a “binding” standard had to be set within the country.
In the year 1758, the king of England ordered a commission to investigate and indoctrinate a defined measure titled “Imperial standards”. Since that time to present (246 years), the English foot of measure has remained consistent.
Although the historical development of the English foot may imply a relationship to the cubit, we cannot ignore the simple fact that the Romans introduced the original measure, and samples of the ancient Roman foot differ from the presentday English foot. Therefore, there are no mathematical associations between the English foot and any other ancient measuring systems (Ill. 1).
Illustration 1.
The royal cubit and the cubit compared to the English measure in inches. The royal cubit (20.603 English inches) is comprised of twentyeight fingers and divided into seven “palms”. The cubit (17.66 English inches) consists of twentyfour fingers divided into six palms.
There are two wellknown documented references to the royal cubit from ancient times; the first being the writings from the Greek historian Herodotus (fl. 440 BC) and the recently translated papyrus scripts from the Egyptian “Book of the Dead” (est. 1450 BC).
Both sources describe the royal cubit been produced, or handed down to the ancient Egyptians by a divinity, or visiting god, but there is no information describing why the instruments were designed in this manner, nor are there any “natural” elements that can be associated with their lengths. Although it has been suggested that either the cubit or royal cubit is actually a part of a larger measure, there is no evidence of this larger measure existing.
Now the challenge is to search for a possible link to these measures, and how the ancients calculated their individual lengths.
2. Rightangle triangle formed from the royal cubit and the cubit.
It is most unfortunate that many Egyptologist and archeologists do not realize the Giza pyramid structures were built over rough terrain, and their base measure surpassing 215 meters in length…a staggering distance, yet their accuracy is held within several centimeters of true measure.
To accomplish this feat, the ancients had to know how to form a rightangle triangle. How it was attained has yet to be learned, but knowing of this remarkable feat, instigated the comparison between the two cubit lengths when they are placed right angle to each other (Ill. 2).
Illustration 2.
Forming a rightangle triangle using the royal cubit and the cubit to form the two sides.
It was anticipated that the angle formed by this triangle would relate to one of the many pyramids built by the ancients, but there are no structures exhibiting the angular measure as shown. This directs us to one other mathematical alternative…comparing the ratios for all three sides (Chart 1).

Hypotenuse
Royal Cubit
Cubit
36.88
28
24
Hypotenuse 36.88
–
0.759
0.651
Royal cubit 28
1.317
–
0.857
Cubit 24
1.537
1.167
–
Chart 1.
The ratios of the three sides from the rightangle triangle, formed by the two cubit measures.
The ancients were renown for their astronomical studies, and understood the harmonious motions of their wondering gods, the planets. From the above chart, there is one ratio most commonly known to astronomers, the distance ratio of Mars compared to Earth when measuring their average distances from the Sun (1.523). This ratio instigated a closer view of our neighboring planet Mars with respect to Earth.
3. Comparing the triangle formation with the planets Earth and Mars.
Many remain steadfast in their belief that the ancient Egyptians were not aware of planets orbiting the Sun, but it is here where this issue should be put to rest.
In the approximate year of 560 BC and 1633 AD (note 2100 years separation), two distinguished individuals were sentenced to house arrest until their dying days. Their crime committed was to teach their beliefs that Earth and the “wandering gods” orbited the Sun. Their names…. Pythagoras and Galileo!
Planet motion around the Sun had been common knowledge for several millennia, yet the religious sector failed, or refused to understand the workings of the cosmos.
The ancient Egyptians acclaimed the stars as “gods” and the orbiting planets “wandering gods”. Their fortune or misfortune depended on what “wandering” god(s) was passing/visiting the stationary gods. To rephrase into our terminology…the ancients lifestyle depended on what planet(s) aligned with stars, a system that many continue to rely upon in this modern world of ours; we define it as astrology. We simply changed the title “god” to star, and the name “wandering gods” to planets; unfortunately we tend to forget the source for the word “planet” . “Planet” is derived from Greek, meaning “wanderer”, therefore we observe wanderers; identical to the ancients…nothing has changed!
It is a fatal error for us to believe that all planets are similar to Earth only because they orbit the Sun. The four large outer planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have been monitored, indicating they giving off more energy than they receive from external sources. Therefore, by definition, these four larger gaseous planets could be called suns, and a sun is a star, therefore the four large outer planets are wandering stars. The ancient Egyptians were correct…we have judged incorrectly!
Since the ancients were religiously dependant upon their wandering gods, they studied and measured their daily motion in the heavens; it was the most logical thing to do. They needed to know how often their favored/feared planet would return, or meet with other planets. We shall learn, they counted the days and measured with stunning accuracy.
Using the two cubit measures, they are now placed upon the orbital paths for Mars and Earth (Ill. 3).
Illustration 3.
Comparing the rightangle triangle, formed by the two cubit measures, to the orbital locations for Earth and Mars
The above illustration has the cubit (24 fingers) representing the average orbital distance Earth is from the Sun (blue circle). From this location, the royal cubit (28 fingers) measures horizontally to the average distance Mars is from the Sun (red circle). The solid black circle represents the actual “average” distance to Mars, while the inner and outer dashed circles represent the minimum and maximum distance Mars is from the Sun.
4. The calculated location where Mars and Earth would align.
The two cubit measures indicate the orbital paths for Earth and Mars, but supporting evidence must be established to strengthen the possibility that the ancients were knowledgeable astronomers. We should realize that if the ancients fully understood planet distances, then they certainly knew their individual orbital periods.
In 1609 AD, German astronomer Johannes Kepler introduced to the world of science his third law of motion. Simply stated; the cube of the distance ratio, from one planet to the other, is directly proportional to the square of their period of orbit….In laymen terms, if you know how far a planet is from the Sun, then you can calculate how long it requires for that planet to orbit the Sun.
Earth orbits the Sun in 365.25 days while Mars requires 686.97 days. From the previous diagram, the angle formed by the two cubit measures is 49.4 degrees, using Kepler’s third law, Earth must travel 105.48 degrees to “catch up” to Mars…Earth and Mars align with the Sun at this location (Ill. 4).
Illustration 4.
Using Kepler’s third law of motion, Earth and Mars will align at the location indicated. Earth orbits 105.48 degrees around the Sun to align with the slower planet Mars, the latter only traveling 56.08 degrees along its designated course.
For the first time, there is evidence indicating these measures being involved within the pyramids at Giza and Dashure.
During the Egyptian III and IV dynasty, there were several pyramids built, other than those at Giza. One pyramid in particular is the “North” pyramid at Dashure. The oddity of this structure is the low angular slope chosen in the design; its measure is 43.68 degrees. From the above illustration, we can see the identical angle formed when a line is drawn from the initial start position of Earth to the alignment position of Mars. For those who may attempt to dispute this claim, they must first provide the true reason why the ancients elected to build the north pyramid at such a low angular slope….unknowingly, the answer has always been visible in the heavens; the direction the pyramids point toward.
Egyptologists now realize the ancients having understood the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, also known as the number pi, and many admit the two large pyramids at Giza have distinct side ratios, those being 4/3 and 4/pi. Using the cubit and finger of measure, the 4/3 ratio is expressed as a 1:22 sekhed (1 cubit to 22 finger ratio), while the 4/pi ratio is a 1:21 sekhed (1 cubit to 21 finger ratio). From this, we can now compare the ratios for the two large pyramids to each other, they produce a secondary ratio equal to 21/22, and this reduces to 3/pi.
Comparing the sloped sides of the Giza pyramids produces a 3/pi ratio, and the North pyramid at Dashure is built on a 43.68 angle, or 3/pi ratio !!…This is sufficient evidence to indicate the ancient Egyptians being advanced in trigonometry and they implementing an ingenious means to demonstrate the orbital motion of Earth compared to Mars at two separate pyramid sites.
5. The introduction to Venus and the numbers 28 and 62.
Although it appears intriguing that both the cubit and royal cubit were possibly used to determine the orbital location for Mars, there had to be a secondary motive behind the design.
The closest distance between Mars and Earth is approximately 55 million km, however, Venus is closer in measure (39 Million km), and orbits between Earth and the Sun. The average distances from the Sun, for the planets Venus, Earth, and Mars are 108.21, 149.6, and 227.6 million km respectively.
When using the royal cubit and cubit to indicate orbital locations for Earth and Mars, the 24 finger cubit represented the distance Earth is from the Sun. Using the above information, then the distance to Venus would equal 17.36 fingers (108.21×24/149.6). Illustration 5 now shows the orbital path for Venus.
Illustration 5.
The introduction of our inner planet Venus (red circle) and its average orbital distance from the Sun.
The diagonal line, drawn from the previous illustration, is perfectly tangential to the orbital path of Venus; a truly remarkable feat, indicating the ancient’s full knowledge of planetary motion and orbital distances from the Sun.
Although these results are totally amazing, there are two other dimensions to be presented.
Drawing a line from the Sun and perpendicular to the line from Earth to Mars produces a right angle triangle having angular measures equal to 62 and 28 degrees respectively (Ill. 6).
Illustration 6.
Earth, Venus, and Mars align forming a triangle having 62 and 28 degrees angles.
From illustration 6, the two angles formed are 62 and 28 degrees, and we are aware of the 28 fingers to the royal cubit. But it is the second angle that is most important.
…An angle, measuring 62 degrees, has a tangent ratio equaling 1.8807, and the most remarkable coincidence is the planet Mars… it orbits the Sun 1.8808 Earth years!
6. A final examination of the two cubit measures.
The previous notes have demonstrated the orbital locations for Earth and its neighboring planets, and a possible reason for the ancients to create the royal cubit having twentyeight fingers, and the cubit with only twentyfour. But within these instruments is at least one additional measure to be noted.
It was mentioned how the ancients used the royal cubit and fingers to create any angle they preferred, Egyptologists use the term sekhed. However, there appears to be a disagreement explaining how this technique was incorporated for building the ancient pyramids. Many believe that only whole finger measures were compared to the royal cubit to form the desired angle.
e.g. A 4/3 ratio is equal to (1 cubit)/(22 fingers), or a 1:22 sekhed measure. This system would be adequate for standard triangular designs, but most inadequate for precise astronomical measure. The ancients had to include their knowledge of celestial motion, and designed within both types of cubits the orbital period for Earth, Mars and our closets object, the moon.
The sidereal period for the Moon is 27.322 Earth days; this number was marked on the length of the royal cubit. From this location a line is drawn to the endpoint of the short cubit, forming a 48.71 degrees angle (Ill. 7).
Illustration 7.
Using the finger measure of 27.33 to represent the orbital period of the Moon, the ancients then drew a line (red) to the end of the short cubit, forming a 48.71 degrees angle.
We no longer show interest or concern in planet observation, and we are not expected to reason why the importance of the 48.71 degree angle. Today’s Egyptologists, archeologists, and astronomers are equally guilty for not familiarizing themselves with basic measuring techniques of the heavens. Since we do not attempt to understand, then it is absolutely incorrect for us to claim the ancients never understood.
When Earth and Mars align together with the Sun, then the next true alignment will occur after two complete orbits of Earth plus 48.71 degrees. The time required for Earth to orbit 48.71 degrees is 49.4 Earth days!
…The royal cubit and the cubit are perfectly designed instruments; used by the ancients for measuring and recording planetary data.
7. Conclusion.
Science has developed immensely over the past century, but our sacrifice for learning is our forgetting what we once knew. Half of the industrialized countries on this planet are set in their ways, using a designed measure from medieval times. Yet, at the same moment, we claim the ancient Egyptians having little knowledge in astronomy, and the inability to measure with precision. Their measure did not incorporate grains of wheat, barley, or oats, nor did they use a link of chain…they used basic intelligence. But can we believe they having gained this basic intelligence, or were the writings within the Book of the Dead and those by Herodotus correct. Were the Egyptians the chosen guardians of this sacred measure, the royal cubit, handed down from a visiting god to this planet? To those who believe the ancient Egyptians did not know mathematics to a greater extent than given credit for, may I say…there is much for you to learn.
Yes it is true; they did worship the heavenly stars and planets. They were taught and believed the stars being gods, but they also believed in Nun who was the universe and creator of all. Nun was a spirit who bore Atum, and Atum created the first couple to live upon this Earth. Where do our presentday religions differ, or are our religions no more than a simplified version derived from the ancient Egyptians?
This topic, relating to the two cubit measures, was mandatory to explain and illustrate, for without understanding the ancient’s ability to measure planet distances and motion, then any further evidence will be viewed as pure coincidental. There is an immense amount of knowledge hidden within the Giza pyramids, and without a means to measure; we automatically prohibit ourselves from learning what messages were left.
What prevents us from reaching back into time? Is it the lack of interest, or the fear from learning the truth? Did Pythagoras and Galileo waste away their lives in absolute seclusion, only for us to remember their names, but forget their true cause?
The time has arrived where full knowledge will be learned and the wisdom to be spread.
8. References
Exploration of the Universe, AbellMorrisonWolff, 1987
The Timetables of Science, Alexander Hellmans, Brian Bunch, 1988
New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, Robert Graves, 1977
Larousse Astronomy, Philippe de la Cotariere, 1987
“106” The Dawn of Man, Clive Ross, 1999