CLIVE ROSS' RESEARCH

 

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.

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 "close-up" photographs of our planets Earth, Venus, Mars, and the Moon. In the interim, Earth-orbiting 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 hand-in-hand with many post-graduate 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).

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.

 

6. Conclusion.

7. References.

---

1 The Orion "belt" and the pyramids.

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.

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 over-magnified, 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 tri-star combinations also fitting into the three-pyramid geometry. 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" over-sights, 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 pre-designated 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 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 radar-detection 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 only the base, upward to approximately one-half 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?

http://www.gizapyramid.com/cliveross.htm

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).

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)

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 near-perfect 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.

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…".

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).

THE GIZA PLATEAU AS A REPRESENTATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

© Terry Maxwell 13 February 2003

Much has been made of the 3^rd Pyramid being offset. It forms the basis of the Orion Correlation Theory, but this does not take into account all the other smaller edifices on the Plateau such as subsidiary pyramids. Is there a more all-encompassing theory of the layout that can account for all of the major structures?

Figure 1

Looking at Figure 1, let us commence by sighting lines through the two sets of subsidiary pyramids of the 3^rd Pyramid (line AB, east-west) and the Great Pyramid (line BC, north-south) respectively. Now let us form a triangle by sighting another line that passes through the centres of the Great and Second Pyramids (line AC). This may seem a somewhat arbitrary starting point for analysis, but hopefully the full implications of this initial geometric model should soon become clear.

If we now sight a line that bisects the angle at point A, we find that not only does it pass through the centre of the Third Pyramid, but also that it meets the line BC at Campbells Tomb. However, more intriguingly, if you were stood at point A during the period 2700-2400 BC, on mid-summers day you would see the Sun rise directly behind the 3rd Pyramid. This is why we do not have an exact equilateral triangle, because the angle at point A is 47 degrees, so that when bisected it gives the 23.5 degrees of the tilt of the Earth. Moreover, during the same period if you were stood at point B looking directly north at dusk you would see Polaris rise behind the three subsidiaries of the Great Pyramid.

Figure 2

So how does this relate to the solar system? If we refer to Figure 2 let us assume that point A, as the pivotal 'viewing point', represents the Sun. If we then place a compass on this point and draw the arcs of a series of circles whose circumferences pass through the centre of each of the ten pyramids, we can postulate that these represent the orbits around the Sun of the planets corresponding to the pyramids as follows:

4th pyramid = Mercury

5th pyramid = Venus

6th pyramid = Earth

3rd pyramid = Mars

10th pyramid = Asteroid Belt

2nd pyramid = Jupiter

1st pyramid = Saturn

7th pyramid = Uranus

8th pyramid = Neptune

9th pyramid = Pluto

Clearly this assumed groundplan places the planets in their correct order. But when we examine the relative sizes of the various pyramids against the relative sizes of their corresponding planets, it is clear that we have a great many anomalies. At the very least Jupiter and Saturn are massively larger than all the others, as they should be, but in general it appears we may be looking at a largely symbolic rather than a highly accurate mapping of the "above" in the "below".

As for the distances between the planets, if we were looking for accuracy it would clearly be impossible to maintain the correct overall scale unless one started with pyramids representing Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars which were so miniscule and close together that they could easily be overlooked or damaged. Conversely, if we take their position as our starting point then Uranus, Neptune and Pluto would have to be in the middle of the Mediterranean. It may be that they are all presented on a sliding scale, perhaps in three different sections from the Sun to the Asteroid Belt, from the latter to Saturn, and from that on to Pluto. But again, overall we might assume that the architects did not have totally accurate information about the size and positioning of the planets, but did at least have a general idea of the layout that they wanted to represent on the Giza Plateau.

But how would they have known about the three outer planets? I can only suggest that they had some sort of lenses, and the recent findings concerning crystal lenses dating as far back as the Old Kingdom collated by Robert Temple in his The Crystal Sun (Century, 2000) suggest that this may not be as far-fetched a suggestion as it at first appears. Nevertheless one might argue that Pluto is so tiny that even then they would not have been able to detect it.

This is a theory I have been working on  for some time. It is not completely watertight, although there are other interesting aspects that I have omitted from this overview. At present I simply look forward to receiving constructive feedback on max@futuresound.f9.co.uk.