News

THE GIZA TEMPLATE

Researcher Unlocks Advanced Geometric Secrets in the Ancient Site

Pennsylvania woodcarver Ed Nightingale is raising some eyebrows in alternative Egyptology circles. His elegant geo­metric solution to the complete layout of the Giza Plateau is revealing a level of sophistication for the ancient build­ers long suspected but unproven, at least as far as mainstream archaeology is concerned. Nightingale shows how har­monically related circles with a ratio of 4 to 3 to 2 precisely convey the layout of the vast arrangement and its nine pyramids. The proportions, he says, can be expressed as the “A” note of the musical scale; and, moreover, 432 is the square root of the speed of light. Nightingale’s geometric template, derived using computer aided design tools, also incorporates the interiors of the monuments.

Many researchers have proposed theories claiming advanced design for the elements of the Giza plain. Any such notion, of course, is hotly disputed by mainstream Egyptology, insisting that the structures were nothing more than tombs for egocentric pharaohs. Nevertheless, many scholars of a more independent frame of mind have claimed, for example, that there are many elements of advanced geometry incorporated into the design of the Great Pyramid, in­cluding, but not limited to, the golden ratio. Some, like engineer Christopher Dunn, have seen advanced technologi­cal implications and even argued that the Great Pyramid was a power plant. Others, like Robert Bauval, have observed astronomical relationships in the Giza layout. Bauval believes the Giza plateau is a mirror of the heavens featuring the constellation Orion. None of those notions contradict Nightingale’s suggestion; but if he is right, it adds a great deal to the case of those who believe the ancients possessed a level of knowledge which has only begun to be appre­ciated.

One well-known researcher who has expressed approval for Nightingale’s idea is John Anthony West. According to the Pennsylvania newspaper, the Pocono Record, West said, “I’m pretty well convinced that he’s solved a major aspect of a puzzle that has intrigued and eluded dozens of ardent researchers for many decades: the geometry upon which the Giza plateau is based. This has many important ramifications/implications for ancient Egypt specifically but also for the history of the ancient world in general.”

20,000 YEARS TO PAINT?

The cave art of Europe was a long time in the making—maybe many thousands of years—indicates new research.

The haunting images have long amazed and mystified modern observers. The artistic mastery which is clearly ap­parent equals and even exceeds modern standards, but we are asked to reconcile this level of achievement with the conventional view that the paintings were the work of primitives (cave men) when it is officially doubted that humans at that stage were even capable of symbolic thought. The idea was that extraordinary individuals somehow broke through the primitive darkness. Now new research is suggesting that the art was the result of sustained and coherent effort by many artists over many millennia.

By analyzing minute quantities of uranium and thorium in thin layers on top of the cave art in the Altimira caves of Spain and other locations, researchers have discovered that the works were 20,000 years in the making. In other words, after the initial painting, hundreds of generations of artists would continue to return and make changes and refinements for thousands of years afterward. Dr. Alistair Pike, an archaeologist at Bristol University in England, told London’s Daily Telegraph, “the art gives us a window into the minds of the individuals who produced them, but what we don’t know is exactly which individuals they were as we don’t know exactly when the art was created.” However, in research published by the Natural Environment Research Council’s website Planet Earth, Pike discovered some of the paintings were between 25,000 and 35,000 years old. The youngest paintings in the cave were 11,000 years old.

For some observers, the high level of ancient achievement is much easier to understand as the product of the twi­light of an advanced, albeit lost, civilization, than as representing the dawn of another. Still, it appears that conven­tional archaeology remains reluctant to consider the implications of a forgotten prologue and sticks to its idea of ig­norant primitives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.