|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Thornborough Henge Central » Yorkshire shows the Egyptians how to do it! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 13, 2004, 08:45
|
||
|
There seem to be a lot of websites promoting the Orion alignment of the pyramids as a definite , whereas the extablishment now dismisses the idea. The argument seems to be stuck in the same situation as Thornborough - how persuasive is the level of accuracy? I read that the Beebs Horizon programme said a 9 degree error at Giza "proved" it wasn't deliberate. I've re-done it more carefully and it seems Thornboro is more accurate than that. http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/25391 So now what? If Giza is real, Thornborough is more competent. If Giza isn't real, Thornborough might still be. (This might be a good selling point for Thornborough George - "represents Orion to a level of accuracy that puts the Ancient Egyptians to shame" !)
|
|||
BlueGloves 858 posts |
Mar 13, 2004, 09:14
|
||
|
Professor Glob writes - 'Further evidence for this seems to be provided by a hazel stick 30.9 inches long which was found close to the northern side of the coffin and which had notches cut along its side. Measuring from one end, the first and second notches were at intervals of six inches, the third notch being twelve inches from the second and six from the far end. There can be little doubt it was a Bronze Age measuring rod marked out in feet, which was used in the construction of the coffin and possibly also in the the laying out and erection of the mound.' - P.V. Glob (1973) The Mound People - Danish Bronze-Age Man Preserved, published by Gylendahl. It's odd how separate strands of academia continue separately but I wonder how the bands of surveyor builders communicated with each other. Possibly it was by a form of horn semaphore, possibly by smoke signals.
|
|||
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Mar 16, 2004, 09:22
|
||
|
Graham Hancock made a big thing about the fact that the Orion alignment of the pyramids would have been much more accurate in the past that it is today, owing to the Earth's precession. This may have been perfectly valid. However, he projected back for the best alignment and came up with a date of 10,500BC, which doesn't match any of the other evidence for the date of construction. He was duly ridiculed by the establishment. It would be interesting to do the same projection for Thornborough. If the best alignment coincides with the accepted chronology for the construction of the henges, then the case is strengthened considerably.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 16, 2004, 09:51
|
||
|
The earth's precession might affect the viewing type alignment, but not the shape of the belt I presume. Would that have changed much in the time? If it has we have the interesting situation that if it was more bent previously then the pyramids may be spot on whereas if it was straighter then Thornboro is. So we can tell the sceptics: there's compelling evidence that Thornboro and the pyramids are/are not depicting the belt but we're not sure whether we mean "respectively"
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Mar 16, 2004, 11:05
|
||
|
"If it has we have the interesting situation that if it was more bent previously then the pyramids may be spot on whereas if it was straighter then Thornboro is. " Perhaps it is yet to become more straight and Thornborough's time has not yet come ...
|
|||
|
BlueGloves 858 posts |
Mar 16, 2004, 11:19
|
||
|
Measure twice (and cut once) ! I remember that rocket that went to Mars or somewhere. The orbit was programmed in metres and entered into the machine's memory as yards. Or the other way round. To err is human - we must allow both the megalith builders, and the Ancient Egyptians, their errors. We were trading so there must be cultural influences - the angle of the Giza pyramid walls, from the horizontal, being close to that of Silbury Hill is curious, but. I wonder where that Mars orbiter is now. PeteG looked at the prehistoric Orion's Belt in StarMap (?) and reckoned it was the same then. Are we agreed that these three stars were considered important because they indicated Sirius/Dog Star ?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 16, 2004, 12:00
|
||
|
I think the error, if such it was, didn't come from converting their scratched diagram into a larger scale - it's quite conceivable that they were capable of doing that with virtually zero error. It would have come between looking up and drawing what they saw. You'll like this, as it's practical. Get the alignment on screen, step back (more than 20 yards ideally so it appears of the size it appears in the sky) and repeatedly try to replicate it on paper. My score, out of 5 attempts: Worse than both - 3. Better than the Egyptians - 2, Better than Yorkshire - nil. Ah but this doesn't rule out sheer chance. And round we go again.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Mar 17, 2004, 08:48
|
||
|
"the angle of the Giza pyramid walls, from the horizontal, being close to that of Silbury Hill is curious" I think you've got your facts wrong. The angle of Silbury hill is around 30 degrees, whereas the great pyramid is about 52 degrees. However, I agree with your general point about allowing that the ancients may have had some inaccuracies.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Mar 17, 2004, 09:07
|
||
|
It depends on where we are in the precession cycle as to whether T'bro or Giza have the closer alignments. The period of precession is about 26,000 years. Hancock would not have looked into the future to find an alignment, so the fact that he had to go back almost half of the total precession time means that T'bro may well have a better alignment by only going back say 5000 years. Actually, thinking about precession, it sounds like a load of crap that the stars would look any different. There's a much larger parallax change as the Earth orbits the sun than would be observed as a result of precession. If there is a change in the shape of Orion's belt it must be due to Proper Motion of the stars themselves, so Hancock's idea of change due to precession is a load of bollocks.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 17, 2004, 09:31
|
||
|
"If there is a change in the shape of Orion's belt it must be due to Proper Motion of the stars themselves, so Hancock's idea of change due to precession is a load of bollocks." Exactly my point. And if they are changing, how do we know? We can do the doppler thing for motion away from us but do stars go apparently sideways and how long would it take for us to detect it. Is such a thing shown on the astronomy software? Oh crikey I hope this isn't going to get into relativity.
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
