Atlantis Rising Stargate

7/29/2019 Atlantis Rising Stargate

1/4

Featured Issu e About Us Now in P rint Archives

Subscribe

NAVEL OF THE WORLD OR STARGATE?

The Argument over the Real Purposeof the Giza Pyramids R ages On

BY FR ANK JOSEPH

The Great Pyramid has been many things to many people. M ost Egyptologist s are certain it is nothing more t han the

tomb of a megalomanical king. Less mainstream researchers are convinced it is a time capsule. Still others conclude

it is an observatory of some kind. A modern proponent of t he Great Pyramids as tronomical s ignif icance is t he

famous construction engineer, Robert Bauval. He argues that t he pyramid-builders oriented it to the Belt of Orion

(Osiris, to the Egyptians) around 2450 B.C. This is s ome 200 years later than majority scientif ic opinion claims t he

structure was built, a conclusion that went against the grain of conventional and unconventional researchers alike.

According to Bauval, the placement and alignment of all three G iza pyramids were part of t heir function as f unerary

temples , in which the s oul of the deceased pharaoh became identified with an immortal star in the heavens. H e

conjectures an elaborate ceremony, during which the royal mummy was transported f rom one as tral alignment to

another. His s peculation is grounded in original source mate rials, such as Utterance Number 245 in The Pyramid

Text s addressed to the would-be pharaoh: As sume your place in heaven among the s tars, for you are a solitarystar, a companion of the Great Sphinx. You shall look down upon Osiris while he commands the s pirits, yet you are

apart f rom him, and not among them.

Supported by suggestive text s such as these, an Orion-Osiris Correlation Theory is at least superficially valid through

simple comparison of the monuments with the stars in quest ion. The three pyramids do indeed parallel the

configuration in the Belt of Orionif not precisely, then close enough for ritualist ic reasons. Their similarity cannot be

coincidental for a people as ast ronomically proficient and symbol-minded as the ancient Egyptians. As above, so

below is a theurgic formula with roots lost in the depths of prehist ory. But Bauval jumps t o the conclusion that t he

2450 B.C. date indicated by the declination of the so-called air shaft s of t he Great Pyramid and the height of t he

Orion-Os iris Const ellation above t he horizon infer the date of its construction and related historical data. He asks on

page 195 of his book, The Orion Mystery(Crown Publishers, 1994), was t he Giza Necropolis and, specifically, the

Great Pyramid and its shaft s, a great marker of t ime, a sort of s tar-clock to mark t he epochs of Os iris and, more

es pecially, his First Time?

Probably not, because, again, function does not neces sarily follow f orm. Basic logic recognizes that a six-million-ton

structure is not required to make a star-clock. As much as t he ancient builders enjoyed monumental architecture,

MAY/JU NE 2008 #69

Get a FREE Sampler PDF

Buy Full IPadREADY PDF

To View These E-Magazines,

Download Your Free PDF Reader.

IPAD USERSDownload GoodReader App

IN THIS ISSUE

ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE

Sound as the Sculptor of Life

BY JEFF VOLK

The M an Who Said He Could

Create L ife

BY PETER KIN G

ANCIENT MYSTERIES

Giants in the Earth

BY MARK AM ARU

PINKHAM

Navel of the World or Stargate?

BY FR ANK JOSEPH

ANCIEN T WISDOM

God & Gold

BY JOHN WHITE

The Mystery of Music

BY RON M cVANN

CLASSIC ASTROLOGY

Venus

BY JULIE GILLENTINE

EARLY RAYS

News

More N ews

Even More News

St ill More N ews

Atlantis Rising MagazineAncient Mysteries, The Unexplained, and Future Science

Navel of the World or Stargate? Atlantis Risin... http://atlantisrisingmagazine.com/2008/05/01/na...

1 of 4 04/19/2011 07:56 PM


2/4


3/4

the deity, as did the names of most pharaohs. H e was doubtless a controversial ruler, because his supporters and

detractors were arguing over his memory long after his death, as recorded in surviving stone t ablets recovered from

the Giza Plateau precinct by the renowned British archaeologist, Sir Flinders Pet rie, at t he close of t he 19th century.

In fact, their post mortem debate underscores Khufus lack of involvement with const ruction of the Great Pyramid.

Surely, had he been res ponsible for building the foremost structure of all time, his f ollowers would have proudly listed

its creation at the head of all his deeds. But in the 26th Dynast ys so-called Inventory St ele, which does indeed

catalogue his Old Kingdom accomplishments, Khufus loyal adherents do not credit him with raising the Great Pyra-

mid. In fact , it is never mentioned in the text , quite an oversight, if we are to believe Cheops was the builder. While

no mortal Khufu may be associated with the Great Pyramid, the immortal Khnemus identification with the st ructureis no less perfect than its own precise measurements. It seems apparent that mainstream Egyptologists have

confused a man for a god, and, in so doing, lost the penet rating signif icance of his name.

They insist that t he small compartment labeled the Kings Chamber allegedly designed for Pharaoh Khufus sar-

cophagus was really a sepulchre. But its designers created no labyrinth of meandering passageways to mislead

intruders, a s tandard feature otherwise f ound throughout dynastic mortuary architect ure. I nstead, a des cending

corridor leads straight to the large, ascending Gallery, by which the chamber is reached directly. The spurious

Queens Chamber, just below, is no less easily entered. These corridors would have afforded no protection against

theft . And as anyone who has entered the Great Pyramid may tes tify, the cramped, narrow confines of its internal

pass ageways are s ometimes so small they may accommodate only one person at a time. V isitors are f orced to

stoop beneath the low ceiling. There is simply no room for elaborate ceremonies, funereal or otherwise, to say nothing

of pallbearers carrying a typically mass ive s arcophagus through such confined spaces . A mortuary identity f or the

Great Pyramid is in every aspect invalidated by the inte rnal spaces of t he s tructure its elf.

Renowned Egyptologist, M argaret Murray, found that the ques tion as t o the use of t he early pyramids has never

been satisfactorily answered. It is usually stated that they were burial places; t his may be t rue of the latt er ones ,

but there is no proof that this was t heir original purpose. But t here is evidence t hat they were used for some s pecial

religious ceremonies in connection with the Divine King, though whether he was alive or dead is uncertain (The Egyp-

tian Pyramids, Knopf, 1990, p. 137). Bauval agrees that t he interior of the Great Pyramid comprised a Hall of Initia-

t ion for some royal myst ery-cult of rebirth. But its few, linear corridors do not form a useful ritual path for initiates to

follow, as every visitor who has had to squeeze t hrough the Des cending Passage knows. We are once again con-

fronted by a structure far too huge to accommodate such a relatively limited theory. A temple a fraction the size of

the Great Pyramid, while s till colossal, would have made far more sense.

Bauvals att empts at dating construction of t he Great Pyramid to 2450 B.C. by way of its stellar alignment may be

unconvincing. But so-called hard evidence narrows dating scales. For example, an intact Gerzean vase from

pre-Dynast ic times (circa 3800 to 3500 B.C.) appears to depict all three pyramids s tanding on the G iza Plateau. It

was found during 1990 in the desert around Abydos, and today belongs to the Luxor Museum. Most recent radio-

carbon dates for the Great Pyramid were obtained by Dr. Mark Lehner. It is a safe ass umption, he said, that t he

material (collected from the ext erior covered by decorative casing stones until their removal in the 13th century) is

from the original construction (Carbon-Dating the Pyramids, Venture Inward Magazine, vol. 51, #8 , p. 4, 1990) The

high calculation Dr. Lehners team obtained was 1,244 years older than the off icially accepted King Khufu t ime-frame,

placing const ruction of the Great Pyramid around 3809 B.C. This scientif ically ascertained date not only removes the

pyramids origins outs ide the 4th dynasty, but beyond dynast ic civilization altogether. It nonetheless corresponds with

the Gerzean illustration, mentioned above, of the same era.

Even carbon-14s low es timate added almost three hundred years t o the conventional date, bringing construction

near the beginning of pharaonic times . These tes t results suggest that the pyramid was built at s ome point within

the ext remes of t heir date parameters; in other words, f rom the mid- t o late-4th millennium B.C. Conservatively,

the Great Pyramids calibrated date falls bet ween 2850 and 3050 B.C., according to Caroli, and so is 300 to 500

years older than the date agreed upon by st andard chronologies . 2950 B.C. might be t reated as t he absolute

calibrated median. These earlier dates for its construction are important to understand pyramid origins, because they

indicate t hat the foremost building of the ancient world was completed at the very start of Egypts dynast ic history.

Consequently, the pharaonic identity of its builders becomes all the more uncertain, and we must look elsewhere for

the mast er-builders res ponsible. As Alexander Braghine concluded in 1940, In the solution of the problem of t he

origin of t he pyramid builders is hidden also the s olution of t he origin of Egyptian culture and of t he Egyptians

themselves (The Shadow of Atlantis, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1997).

Es tablishment chronology for the G iza pyramids is further shaken by the demonst rable f act that all major st ructures

at t he plateau were built simultaneously as separate elements of a common complex. Conventional scholars have

long taught that Khufu built the Great Pyramid. It was copied in the second larges t specimen by his son, Khafre,

who, out of deference for his father, refused to make it quite as high. The third and smallest of the pyramids was

supposed to have been built many years later by Menkaure, almost as an afterthought. This off icial scenario for the

Giza Plateau is absolutely without f oundation, an utte r fiction, that has nonetheless become one of t he tenets of

modern Egyptology. But a closer look at t he site reveals an altogether different story.

Internal evidence likewise implies a date circa 3000 B.C. Caroli points out, there are indications t hat data concerningcycles of t ime were also included in the Great Pyramid. Its four sides might relate to t he Sothic cycle, t hat st ellar


3 of 4 04/19/2011 07:56 PM


4/4

calendar by which the Egyptians calculated time. In inches , the s tructures basic measurements equate t o one

century. I ts primary f igures (height, apothem and circumference) parallel a Sothic cycle known to have been employed

by the Egypt ians in chronicling their mythic past . That particular cycle ran from approximately 45,000 to 5,000 years

ago. While a 45,000 year-date for the monument is certainly out of t he question, its construction around the t urn of

the 4t h millennium happens to coincide with the start of the f irst dynast y, the very beginning of pharaonic civilization. I f

true, t hen it should be obvious t hat the Great Pyramid was engineered by foreign culture-bearers from some highly

advanced society who arrived at the N ile De lta to build the structure (private correspondence, J anuary, 2008 ).

The identity of those culture-bearers is sugges ted by the Giza pyramids themse lves, in view of their deliberate

lay-out after the three stars in the Belt of the Orion Constellation. In Greek myth, Orion, as the son of Earth, was

translated into the night s ky. But a variant of his story has Poseidon, the s ea-god creator of At lantis, and Euryale, one

of t he Gorgons, likewise ass ociated with the At lantic Ocean, as his parents . She gave birth to him on an island in the

distant wes t, where he was blinded, but regained his sight af ter having been brought to another island, Delos, in the

Aegean Sea. Going blind and regaining ones sight was a poetic metaphor for death and rebirth, and here parallels the

death or des truction of At lantis and the rebirth of its mystery cult on Delos, which, signif icantly, was also known as

the Navel of t he World. Orion pursued the Pleiades, children of t he sea-goddes s, Pleione, and At las, the

eponymous deity of At lantis. In fact, t he Pleiades were Daughters of At las, or At lantises. Osiris-Orion identif ied

with the Great Pyramid, and his At lantean identity is no less clear. In the final scene of The Book of Gates, as

depicted on Pharaoh Sety Is alabaster sarcophagus, the distended body of Osiris encircles Sekhet-Aaru, the

F ields of R eeds, the Egyptian term for Atlantis.

by admin - May 1st , 2008.

Filed under: Ancient M yst eries , Stories.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

URI

Your Comment

submit

The appearance of any comment in this space does not constitute an endorsement by Atlantis Rising magazine. Any

claims or assertions made, are the sole responsibility of the author, and readers should exercise appropriate caution in

evaluating their cr edibility. Please refrain from making personal attacks and accusations in your comments. If you feel

you must provide negative information to the public about someone mentioned in our articles, just direct readers to an

appropriate web site.

Type the two words:


4 of 4 04/19/2011 07:56 PM

Documents

Atlantis Rising Stargate