The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids (9 page)

6. PRECONCEIVED, UNIFIED PLAN

Conventional wisdom asserts that each pyramid of ancient Egypt was designed as a single entity, a royal funerary complex, with little consideration given to what had gone before or would come after. In short, there was no grand, preconceived, unified plan for any of the pyramids—so we are led to believe. For Egyptology to ever concede that such a preconceived, unified plan is clearly exhibited in the early, giant pyramids would drive a considerable hole in the pyramid tomb theory, so it is perfectly understandable why Egyptology staunchly resists such notions.

In the previous chapter we observed how the first sixteen or so pyramids in ancient Egypt may have been designed to represent or may have come to represent the sixteen dismembered body parts of Osiris and, in their very placement on the Egyptian landscape, can be shown to resemble a crude outline image of the iconic Osiris figure. But there is considerably more to this grand, unified plan, and it is this second aspect of the planning that may well have been responsible for the association of the god Osiris with the constellation of Orion (i.e., the belt stars).

The three main pyramids at Giza are a prime example of such preconceived, grand planning. In chapter 1, it was stated how the layout of the three Giza pyramids is very similar to the pattern of the Orion’s Belt stars, as proposed by Robert Bauval. What is not so well known is the more recent discovery that the relative proportions of each of the three main Giza pyramids can
also
be shown to derive—in a simple and systematic fashion—entirely from the pattern of the Orion’s Belt stars shown in step 1 in figure 3.3a. The 16 steps that follow demonstrate the derivation of these proportions (figures 3.3a–3.3d).

Step 1. Plot the belt stars (Al Nitak, Al Nilam, and Mintaka) accurately on a blank sheet of paper.

Step 2. Extend a line (L1) between Al Nitak’s center and Al Nilam’s center.

Step 3. Double the length of L1.

Step 4. From the end of L1, extend a line (L2) to Mintaka’s center.

For steps 5–8, see figure 3.3b.

Step 5. Double the length of L2.

Step 6. Box the L2 diagonal. We now have base B3.

Step 7. Mirror base B3. We now have base B3a.

Step 8. Replicate L1 and label it L3.

Figure 3.3a. Creating the relative proportions of the Giza pyramids from Orion’s Belt, steps 1–4

Figure 3.3b. Creating the relative proportions of the Giza pyramids from Orion’s Belt, steps 5–8

For steps 9–12, see figure 3.3c.

Step 9. Place L3 through the diagonal of B3a.

Step 10. Remove B3a.

Step 11. Extend a line (L4) from the midpoint of L3 to Al Nilam’s center.

Step 12. Double the length of L4.

For steps 13–16, see figure 3.3d.

Step 13. Box the L4 diagonal. We now have base B2.

Step 14. Extend a line (L5) from the endpoint of L3 to Al Nitak’s center.

Step 15. Double the length of L5.

Step 16. Box the L5 diagonal. We now have base B1.

We have now produced the three-base (B1, B2, and B3) geo-stellar fingerprint for Orion’s Belt (step 16). If we compare the relative proportions of these three bases with the relative proportions of the three Giza pyramids (G1, G2, and G3), we find that there is an extremely high agreement between the two sets of bases. It is worth noting here that were we to have commenced this design technique by drawing the initial line (L1) from Mintaka’s center to Al Nilam’s center we would have ended up with three entirely different bases that in no way match the relative proportions of the Giza pyramids. Only by starting the design with an initial line (L1) drawn from Al Nitak’s center to Al Nilam’s center can three bases be produced that relatively match the three Giza pyramids. This difference is important to understand, and its significance will be revealed in chapter 7.

For the moment, however, what is also significant about the above design method is that it requires the smallest of the Giza pyramids (the pyramid attributed to Menkaure, otherwise denoted as G3) to be designed
first
in order that the proportions of the other two Giza pyramids, G2 and G1, can then be determined. In other words, the
design sequence
of the geo-stellar fingerprint is the reverse of the actual
construction sequence
whereby, according to conventional Egyptology, G3 was built last, even though in the geo-stellar fingerprint of Orion’s Belt, it is designed first. As such this constitutes a preconceived, unified design, a design, it should be said, that also includes the two crucial sets of three smaller satellite pyramids known as the Queens’ Pyramids.

Figure 3.3c. Creating the relative proportions of the Giza pyramids from Orion’s Belt, steps 9–12

Figure 3.3d. Creating the relative proportions of the Giza pyramids from Orion’s Belt, steps 13–16

Furthermore, in using the Orion’s Belt stars in this manner we find that B3 (G3’s counterpart) will
always
result in a base that is very fractionally rectangular in shape on its north-south axis, while B2 and B1 (counterparts to G2 and G1) will be almost perfectly square. And, as pointed out earlier in this chapter, G3 is indeed very slightly rectangular on its north-south axis, as noted by Lehner, who wrote, “Menkaure’s Pyramid was named ‘Menkaure is Divine.’ Smaller than his predecessors’ pyramids at Giza, it has a base area of 102.2 × 104.6 m (335 × 343 ft).”
⁸

Even today, using satellite mapping technology, we can observe the clear geometric relationship between the pyramids at Giza that is a natural outcome of the design method described above. We can easily observe at Giza how these structures are aligned along “inter-quarter lines” (figure 3.4) that bisect the sides of these pyramids and their Queens’ Pyramids. Such a geometric relationship is unlikely to be the result of simple, random design and placement of these structures.

That it can be shown that the relative proportions of the main pyramids at Giza can be derived simply and easily from the arrangement of the Orion’s Belt star asterism is claimed by some as nothing more than coincidence. This is highly unlikely in the extreme. As stated in chapter 1, the Orion constellation, known to the ancient Egyptians as Sah, became the stellar personification of the ancient Egyptian god Osiris, the god of rebirth and regeneration who is associated with agriculture. In their 1994 book,
The Orion Mystery,
Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert show that the pyramids at Giza present an almost perfect match in their layout to the arrangement of the Orion’s Belt stars. So here we have two quite separate correlations of the Giza pyramids with the Orion’s Belt stars: their layout (i.e., belt asterism)
and
their relative proportions (i.e., belt geo-stellar fingerprint).

Now, the odds of such an outcome occurring by simple chance are somewhere in the order of trillions to one against. This is to say that if you were to create three random dots on a sheet of paper and ask a friend to create three random bases, to then find that the fingerprint created from your three dots matches the relative proportions, layout, order, and orientation of the three random bases drawn by your friend would be unlikely in the extreme. Yet, remarkably, such a highly unlikely occurrence is precisely what we have before us with the main pyramids at Giza. It is simply inconceivable that such an occurrence could result from simple random chance, so we have to conclude that Giza, contrary to what we are told by conventional Egyptology, is most likely the result of a preconceived, unified plan, a plan that also included the two sets of three Queens’ Pyramids as the culmination markers of Orion’s Belt (more on this in chapter 7).

If such a preconceived plan had been implemented then it is reasonable to assume that the creation of the actual plan could have been conceived and put together very quickly—within days or even hours. Given that ancient Egyptian kings, according to the conventional view, did not plan the tomb of their sons or their grandsons and certainly not their sons’ or grandsons’ queens’ pyramids, then such a preconceived plan to construct nine pyramids at Giza presents a significant obstacle to the conventional view of these structures having been constructed as tombs. And given that this plan (at Giza) would take around eighty years to implement, if they were conceived as tombs, how did the creator of the preconceived, unified plan know that eighty years into the future the king of that time (Menkaure) would only require three queen’s pyramids? How would the designer of this preconceived plan have known that Khafre would not require
any
queen’s pyramids (despite the fact that Khafre actually had five known queens—more than the other two Giza kings)?

Figure 3.4. Geometric relationship between the Giza pyramids
and their Queens’ Pyramids

The simple truth of the matter here is that the planner of Giza simply could not have known the future, ergo he could not have been designing these pyramids as tombs of kings and queens because he simply could not have known how many pyramid tombs to include in the plan. Yet the telltale signs of a preconceived, unified plan are clear for all to see, and in terms of probability, its existence is virtually beyond doubt. As such we have to conclude that the creator of this plan could not have been designing this set of pyramids at Giza (and by extension all other pyramids constructed before Giza) with the intention of the burial of future kings and queens, so we must further conclude that these structures were designed to serve some other purpose altogether.