Quote:
Originally posted by chance
Joshua Korosi A little off topic (but pyramid related). What if any consensus is there re the ‘Orion theory’. Basically The Orion Theory was published a few years ago, and stated that the 3 pyramids of Giza represent the belt in the constellation of Orion, while the red and bent pyramids form the 2 next brightest stars in the same constellation. The 2 ‘vents’ of the great pyramid were aligned with the pole star and Sirius (I think), also formed part of the theory.
Well, that the "shafts" in the Great Pyramid had an astronomical significance is probably likely. I'm not certain that the southern shaft points toward Sirius, however. See, the northern shaft always pointed toward Alpha Draconis (which was the pole star in 2500 BCE), because Alpha Draconis never moved. But the sky the southern shaft aims at is constantly moving, with so many stars being intercepted by the shaft over the course of the year. Sirius was only one of those stars, so the significance pertaining to Sirius isn't definitive.
The problem with the Orion theory, though, is one of direction. Yes, we've seen photos of Orion's belt superimposed over the pyramids, and they do tend to fit; however, you'll notice as you stand at Giza that the arrangement of the pyramids, compared to Orion's actual belt, is upside down! In order to get the pyramids to "fit", you have to spin the earth 180 degrees. It's easy to do with an aerial photo, of course - but standing at Giza, it's difficult to do. Take a look at the following photos:
You'll notice that in the Orion photo, north is at the top; but in the Giza photo, north is at the
bottom.
In other words, if the Giza pyramids were lined up with Orion, then they confused celestial north with celestial south, and the shafts in the Great Pyramid shouldn't point where we know they point. Chances are, they weren't intended to match up with Orion's belt. They may have been, of course - it wouldn't change anything, really, about our understanding of Egypt - but at the moment it seems sort of incidental.
The kicker here is that even taking the directional differences into account, the pyramids of Giza - set at an angle of 38 degrees from perpendicular to true north - differs from the angle at which Orion's belt lined up with celestial north in 2500 BCE - and here's where the "woo" factor comes in. Proponents of the Orion link theory declare that the angle of Giza against north would match the angle of Orion's belt against celestial north in 10500 BCE, which indicates that the pyramids were built not by Egyptians, but by a long lost civilization! Well, that won't work. See, the angles of Giza and Orion's belt in 10500 BCE do
not match up; the angle of Orion's belt against celestial north in 10500 BCE is about 50 degrees, not 38. Well, it was fun while it lasted...meanwhile, you'd expect such an advanced "lost civilization" to get their cardinal direction points right.