CLIVE ROSS' RESEARCH
The “perfect” alignment
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.
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 "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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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 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.
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).
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).
Substituting Mars with the planet Mercury, the ratio of planet distances from Earth, Venus, and Mercury is within 0.22% of modern-day 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 computer-aided design (CAD), the average orbital paths are drawn to today’s most accurate measures (Ill. 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.
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.
“106” The Dawn of Man, 1999, sbe…………..Clive Ross
Larousse Astronomy, 1987..………..…………Philippe de la Cotardiere
To contact Clive Ross, please email him at: firstname.lastname@example.org