Then, reading the commentary that followed in the thread (with understandably differential levels of understanding, because what kind of loser actually would study old dead people?) someone hit my trigger.
bongmiester: looks alot like the Giza site, if these are indeed pyramids
| Cornwell : |
I would not be surprised if size and distance match up nicely with Orion's Belt at the time of construction. Celestial architecture and planning is a highly underrated discipline.
Augh!!! There's pseudoscience in my archaeology!
I began to compose a response in my mind as I continued the thread, until I saw this:
trixter_nl:
it may however giza is aligned with north basically how orions belt is aligned to the north star, the size of hte pyramids are also in line with the apparent brightness of the 3 stars that make his belt. There is a theory that they used orions belt as the model for how large and the alignment of the 3 pyramids there.
I do not know if all of that would hold with this one. Would be something interesting to monitor though, especially since its known that europeans came to north america about 16,000 years ago (before it was even believed that native americans arrived by 3000 years). They know this through the national geneographic project (they found a genetic marker that can be tied to a specific group of europeans who vanished from europe about 16,000 years ago). They know this group talked with people, who talked with people, because a tool that existed in europe where the people were spread like wildfire through the americas in just a hundred or so years. Given its similarity to tools in part of europe, the fact that they know that some of that group came over, and the fact that the tool only emerged in the americas (different fundamental design to what was there before) after the genetic link can be established, etc its believed strongly to have been brought by that group of europeans.
If they shared tool knowledge they may have shared some of their mythos, which may have taken root down there, even though there was not such a direct link to those people (the europeans settled near the blackfoot, basically in the great lakes area with a tribe I do not recall their name of).
this could be very interesting indeed, and if there is such a link, it might explain some other mythos links, such as atlantis (most cultures globally have a similar legend), man-ape (many continents have a yeti, sasquash, etc type of legend), etc.
Alert! Alert! Abort Mission! Re-evaluate targets and engage!
The ignorance is strong with this one.
This is a problem that plagues archaeology. As a "science-y" science (which is to say we use "hard" science (such as physics, chemistry, and the likes) in combination with theory and ethnography. This makes it very difficult to weed out the pseudosciences from the actual science. As such radical claims held by a distinct minority in the face of overwhelming evidence are often given just as much credence as those of the consensus point of view. Given a mouthpiece such as a newspaper article nothing stands out to separate a kook with letters after his name rambling about how Giza is aligned with Orion, just like Andean Nazca architecture. Or when Kennewick man is proclaimed to have features more in common with Caucasoid groups like the Ainu than modern Native Americans it's hard to combat the minority saying this is proof that Europeans came over from Spain and France to colonize the Americas (the Ainu are Caucasoids indigenous to Japan, preceding the occupation of the islands by mainland Asians).
*As an interesting aside we all know that Kennewick Man famously looks like Jean Luc Picard. However, what if we change a bias? Sculpted from a white/gray sculptors clay it certainly is clear. But what if he's sculpted with a red/brown clay? It's an interesting bias, but of course nothing conclusive as to his origins.*
I never really was able to get back to my point, my rage, about astronomical alignments in archaeological sites. I spent too much time deconstructing the European Migration so that by the time I could address my real pet peeve I'd written a novel. Oh well, I'm sure people aren't really interested in my ranting about why any two points connected with a straight line will inevitably point at a star (especially when you are allowed to cherry pick any two points from a series of identical points).
My example is this: Pick any modern city (so, likely in the US as European cities are more "organic" in their plans), and it is likely to be arranged on a grid. This grid will likely be roughly N/S oriented. As such once or twice a year the sun will rise (or set) perfectly aligned with the cities streets. You can look directly down any of the E-W running boulevards and see a beautiful solar alignment. Are Americans cities built with a mind towards these solar alignments? No. But it certainly looks impressive.
Augh!!! There's pseudoscience in my archaeology!
I began to compose a response in my mind as I continued the thread, until I saw this:
trixter_nl:
it may however giza is aligned with north basically how orions belt is aligned to the north star, the size of hte pyramids are also in line with the apparent brightness of the 3 stars that make his belt. There is a theory that they used orions belt as the model for how large and the alignment of the 3 pyramids there.
I do not know if all of that would hold with this one. Would be something interesting to monitor though, especially since its known that europeans came to north america about 16,000 years ago (before it was even believed that native americans arrived by 3000 years). They know this through the national geneographic project (they found a genetic marker that can be tied to a specific group of europeans who vanished from europe about 16,000 years ago). They know this group talked with people, who talked with people, because a tool that existed in europe where the people were spread like wildfire through the americas in just a hundred or so years. Given its similarity to tools in part of europe, the fact that they know that some of that group came over, and the fact that the tool only emerged in the americas (different fundamental design to what was there before) after the genetic link can be established, etc its believed strongly to have been brought by that group of europeans.
If they shared tool knowledge they may have shared some of their mythos, which may have taken root down there, even though there was not such a direct link to those people (the europeans settled near the blackfoot, basically in the great lakes area with a tribe I do not recall their name of).
this could be very interesting indeed, and if there is such a link, it might explain some other mythos links, such as atlantis (most cultures globally have a similar legend), man-ape (many continents have a yeti, sasquash, etc type of legend), etc.
Alert! Alert! Abort Mission! Re-evaluate targets and engage!
The ignorance is strong with this one.
This is a problem that plagues archaeology. As a "science-y" science (which is to say we use "hard" science (such as physics, chemistry, and the likes) in combination with theory and ethnography. This makes it very difficult to weed out the pseudosciences from the actual science. As such radical claims held by a distinct minority in the face of overwhelming evidence are often given just as much credence as those of the consensus point of view. Given a mouthpiece such as a newspaper article nothing stands out to separate a kook with letters after his name rambling about how Giza is aligned with Orion, just like Andean Nazca architecture. Or when Kennewick man is proclaimed to have features more in common with Caucasoid groups like the Ainu than modern Native Americans it's hard to combat the minority saying this is proof that Europeans came over from Spain and France to colonize the Americas (the Ainu are Caucasoids indigenous to Japan, preceding the occupation of the islands by mainland Asians).
*As an interesting aside we all know that Kennewick Man famously looks like Jean Luc Picard. However, what if we change a bias? Sculpted from a white/gray sculptors clay it certainly is clear. But what if he's sculpted with a red/brown clay? It's an interesting bias, but of course nothing conclusive as to his origins.*
I never really was able to get back to my point, my rage, about astronomical alignments in archaeological sites. I spent too much time deconstructing the European Migration so that by the time I could address my real pet peeve I'd written a novel. Oh well, I'm sure people aren't really interested in my ranting about why any two points connected with a straight line will inevitably point at a star (especially when you are allowed to cherry pick any two points from a series of identical points).
My example is this: Pick any modern city (so, likely in the US as European cities are more "organic" in their plans), and it is likely to be arranged on a grid. This grid will likely be roughly N/S oriented. As such once or twice a year the sun will rise (or set) perfectly aligned with the cities streets. You can look directly down any of the E-W running boulevards and see a beautiful solar alignment. Are Americans cities built with a mind towards these solar alignments? No. But it certainly looks impressive.
2 comments:
Holy shit! Now I know what Jean Luc Piccard would look like if he were black!
SCIENCE!
شركة مكافحة البق بالاحساء
شركة تسليك مجارى بالجبيل
شركة تسليك مجارى بخميس مشيط
شركة تسليك مجاري بابها
شركة تسليك مجارى بالدمام
Post a Comment