This is a somewhat shorter episode, just under 20 minutes, where I look into the idea of whether or not the three major Giza pyramids line up with the three main belt stars of Orion. Given the tagline of, “Learn about how two points magically make a line and how three points roughly corresponding to three other points has mystical and profound implications!” you may be able to tell that I was not impressed with the arguments.
If you’d rather not listen to the episode, a summary of the conclusions can be found in the image below:
Exposing PseudoAstronomy 
Thank you so much for taking the time to research and explain it. Because I was just wondering about that as I started to look into pyramidology’s claim the other month.
Astronomer Royal indeed!
Comment by Denis Solaro — May 9, 2012 @ 4:38 pm |
I honestly went into this one not knowing what I would find. I’d heard the claim before and it had always sounded somewhat fishy due to the whole “three points match three other points!” But I did not know what it would actually look like until I did the overlays.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — May 10, 2012 @ 8:51 am |
yes the picture is hilarious and well worth a 1000 words . nice work
Comment by Walter Walkie — May 12, 2012 @ 12:30 am |
Thanks for another interesting episode! Just a quick question; is your star-pyramid correlation overlay based on the present day position of the Orion’s belt stars or what they would have looked like when the pyramids were built (either according to current science or according to the 10000 BC civilization nonsense)? You touched on it in the beginning of the podcast, but either I lost you somewhere along the line or you never elaborated further. I’m going to assume I’m the one lost in space(-time) here. 🙂 Would there even be a noticable difference in the constellation’s appearance over a 4800 or 12000 year span?
Comment by Benny L, Stockholm, Sweden — May 14, 2012 @ 9:06 am |
Sorry, Benny. I realized this issue the day after I posted the podcast, and I’ll discuss it during the next episode. Meantime, check out the shownotes and I have posted a version 2 of the collage which shows precession factored in for ~4500 years ago (and you can see that if you follow the trend, it’s still not going to line up).
Comment by Stuart Robbins — May 14, 2012 @ 6:38 pm |
Something you missed in your episode, the AstronomyCast team actually advocated this concept in their 216th Episode (3rd March 2011)
The relevant quote from the transcript reads:
“Pamela: Exactly. So one of the really neat things you can do with the
Pyramids is just go to Google maps and type in “Pyramids of Giza,” and
when you look at them you can see, “Wow! The edges are exactly North-
South – exactly East-West!” And then when you look at the 3 pyramids
(the 3 big ones), they form this slope. And when you look at them, yeah,
you can go “OK, they’re exactly lined up neatly on diagonals,” but the
other thing that people say is that they were designed to look like the belt
stars of the constellation Orion, so what the ancient Egyptians were actually
building was the belt of Orion when they put these three pyramids where
they put them. Now, it’s not known for certain if this is exactly what was
intended, but it’s just one of those neat things to look at on Google maps
and go, “Huh, yeah, I can see that!””
http://www.astronomycast.com/2011/03/ep-216-archaeoastronomy/
Comment by Graham — July 7, 2013 @ 3:42 am |
I heard that and rolled my eyes. I didn’t send in feedback for two reasons. First, you could read that to infer that she’s not saying that’s what really happened, but it’s an idea that people have. Second, more personal issues I have with Pamela and when I’ve sent in corrections in the past. The fact that they’ve made numerous mistakes on the show and have not ever issued corrections bugs me.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — July 7, 2013 @ 11:20 am |
You might be interested to visit Jason Colavitos blog to see what Robert Bauval is up to now, and guess what, at least part of it hinges on stellar alignments that are supposedly thousands of years old and still accurate in the present day.
Reviewing “Black Genesis” (Pt. 1)
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/08/reviewing-black-genesis-pt-1.html
Reviewing “Black Genesis” (Pt. 2)
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/08/reviewing-black-genesis-pt-2.html
I mentioned your comments on this sort of thing in a comment I made to the second part.
Comment by Graham — August 31, 2013 @ 3:28 am |
The whole theory of Orion Correlation is a mess. Authors like Robert Bauval and Wayne Hershel try very hard to justify their concepts yet fail dismally. I’m no astronomer but having researched the pyramid complex dimensions and layout, I learned it has everything to do with our Sun (Sol), referencing our planet position and tilt, and not some distant Orion belt which only comes up at night for an appointed time. Why the hell would intelligent ancients waste all their time on trying to align Orion to begin with? Absolute rubbish.
Here’s something to think about.
The pyramid slope angle was derived because! of its latitude location.
Note Latitude 29.58
29_58_21_N_31_07_42_E Menkaure
29_58_34_N_31_07_51_E Khafre
29_58_45.03_N_31_08_03.69_E Khufu
90 – 29.58 = 60.42
60.42 + 23.5 = 83.92
60.42 – 23.5 = 36.92
90 – 36.92 = 53.08 (approx slope angle)
90 – 83.92 = 6.08 (the offset of Sphinx and causeway.
These angles will help when comparing celestial angles at solstices and equinoxes.
The Sphinx represents both Leo (Sekhmet) and Virgo (Isis) (a merger). So as far as I am concerned the Sphinx is female.
These two constellations Mark the beginning and end of a cycle. Important to understand are Peret, Shemu and Akhet.
Comment by Shane — June 3, 2015 @ 12:26 am |
Really great overview of the theory.
Comment by Hammy Havoc — November 24, 2018 @ 9:14 pm |