In the early 1960s, American astronomer, Dr. Virginia Trimble, made an interesting observation about the Great Pyramid of Giza, calculating that the 45º inclination of the so-called ‘star-shaft’ through the pyramid from the southern side of the King’s Chamber would have targeted the center of the Belt stars of the Orion constellation around 2500 BC. Egyptologists then seized upon this information as confirmation of the pyramid’s age and, since he is believed to have ruled Egypt at this time, proof that King Khufu built the Great Pyramid in that remote era.
In 1994, Robert Bauval’s The Orion Mystery was published in which he consolidated this star-pyramid association by showing that the layout of the three main pyramids at Giza replicated the pattern (asterism) of the three Belt stars.
However, there was a problem. The star-pyramid correlation had been placed on the ground at Giza at an angle of 44 degrees (from north) while the Belt stars in 2500 BC were pivoted at around 73 degrees—a clear mismatch between sky and ground.
In an attempt to explain this mismatch, Bauval suggested that the pyramids, although, in his opinion, built ca. 2500 BC (as per Trimble’s star-shaft alignment), were laid on the ground at Giza in such a manner as to ‘memorialize’ a much earlier epoch, the ancient Egyptian’s Zep Tepi or ‘First Time’ (of creation), hence why, in Bauval’s opinion, the structures were rotated on the ground at the 44º angle and not the 73º angle the Belt was tilted at 2500 BC.
In checking star-mapping software, we find in the remote epoch of 11,750 BC that the Belt asterism, as a result of earth’s slow precessional motion, was indeed pivoted in the heavens at an angle of 44º (as viewed on the southern meridian).
While Bauval’s suggestion is possible, there are, however, clues at Giza, features within the design, that suggest another quite different and more controversial explanation for this stellar mismatch between Belt altitude and Belt pivot. This alternative explanation arises from asking a simple question: Was there ever a past time when the Belt stars were pivoted at 44º while, at the very same time, the center of the Belt had reached an altitude of 45º to be targeted by the pyramid’s star-shaft? If so, then how far back must we turn the skies for earth’s precessional motion to simultaneously meet both of these stellar alignments? And, of course, if such a condition could be found, then how old might this make the Giza complex?
In consideration of this question, an analysis of the precessional motion of the Belt stars over several hundred thousand years was made and, strangely, revealed that there was never a time when the Belt stars simultaneously reached an altitude of 45º with a pivot of 44º. Beyond this vast amount of time the Belt stars, as a result of their proper motion in space, lose their familiar pattern, becoming quite unrecognizable and far removed from the pattern we find in the pyramids at Giza. So, if this stellar arrangement of Belt altitude (at 45º) and Belt pivot (at 44º) cannot be found at any time in the past, how then are we to explain this stellar mismatch enigma?
One of the longstanding criticisms of the Orion Correlation Theory (OCT) is that the Giza pyramid layout does not present a perfect, point-for-point match with the Belt stars. It seems that the middle pyramid (G2) is slightly ‘offset’ from its true Belt star ground position.
This mismatch between sky and ground of G2 has always been regarded as an error made by the builders in matching the Belt star asterism. However, it may in fact be that this slight offset between sky and ground was actually a deliberate action of the builders and, furthermore, that it may present a clue towards answering the greater stellar riddle of the pyramid’s two ages.
The angular difference between the Belt stars is around 4 degrees. In placing G2 on the ground at Giza slightly offset from its true Belt star position, the builders effectively created an angular difference between the pyramid structures of 6 degrees. But why would the builders have increased this angle from 4 to 6 degrees? What purpose might be served by doing this?
If we further consider the star-shafts of the Great Pyramid, we notice that there are two southern shafts and two northern shafts. An analysis of these shafts shows that the angular difference of each set is offset by around 5.4 degrees and that the trajectories of the northern shafts present a ‘crossover point’ while the southern ones do not. What we also notice is that the Great Pyramid consists of three chambers. If we consider that these three chambers are symbolic of the three Belt stars then the middle chamber (Queen’s Chamber) will represent the middle Belt star, Al Nilam.
We can immediately observe from the middle chamber’s northern and southern star-shafts that they have the same inclination of 39.6 degrees. This would indicate a time when the heavens were in a stable, balanced state. The star-shafts of the highest chamber, however, seem to indicate a time when the heavens were out of balance and had rapidly changed, when the middle Belt star, Al Nilam, moved from its normal place, rising quickly from 39.6 degrees to around 45 degrees. At the same time, the ‘mirror point’ in the northern sky would have descended by an equivalent amount, from 39.6 degrees to around 34.2 degrees.
The ‘crossover point’ indicates to us the direction of this shift of the heavens. Were Al Nilam to have fallen from 45º to 39.6º then we would have found the ‘crossover point’ in the trajectories of the southern shafts as opposed to the northern shafts. What we then have with the two sets of star-shafts is one set showing Al Nilam’s altitude (and northern mirror point) before a sudden change and an upper second set of shafts showing Al Nilam’s altitude (and northern mirror point) after the heavens had shifted. By including the northern shafts with their ‘crossover point’ permits us to determine the direction of the sky shift—the southern stars appeared to increase in altitude while the stars of the northern sky decreased in altitude.
And so, if we accept that the designers of Giza present the two altitudes of the star Al Nilam (before and after it suddenly changed), might not it be reasonable to expect that the designers of Giza also built into their design the pivot of the Belt stars before and after it changed? Is this perhaps why the designers slightly offset the middle pyramid (G2 / Al Nilam) from its true ground position, to demonstrate that, as the altitude of Al Nilam shifted from 39.6º up to 45º, the Belt itself pivoted from 38º to 44º?
This would make sense since, if the Belt stars did suddenly change their altitude by around 5.4 degrees, it is likely that the pivot of the stars would also have been altered simultaneously. And so, with this deeper understanding of the Belt star motions, we now have additional information to try and explain the dual age enigma of the Great Pyramid—it seems to be related to a shift of the heavens.
Of course, it is not actually the stars in the heavens that all suddenly physically moved but rather that the Earth’s pole was somehow shifted making it appear to an Earth-based observer that the stars were moving from their normal course. This controversial subject has caused much, often heated, debate over the years and decades. Conventional wisdom asserts that for Earth’s pole to be shifted so dramatically in such a short period of time would require an object of similar mass colliding with Earth, knocking it from its present orbital dynamics. However, since such a collision would render Earth entirely uninhabitable and extinguish all life, it is asserted that such a pole shift event never occurred—but just how certain is this scientific view?
Scientists are aware that Earth’s poles do shift over very long periods of time with a process known as True Polar Wander. This is why, for example, we find the fossilized remains of trees in Earth’s Polar Regions, because these regions were, millions of years ago, in much more temperate zones; but as the Earth’s pole slowly wandered over millions of years, these former temperate regions became frozen polar zones.
However, in 2002, three physicists W. Wölfli, W. Baltensperger, and R. Nufer proposed a theory of Rapid True Polar Wander whereby the mass of a Mars-sized object passing close enough to Earth could induce a rapid drift of Earth’s pole and could do so without it becoming the extinction-level event imagined by other scientists (http://cds.cern.ch/record/690948/files/0204004.pdf). In the Wolfli et al. model, they propose that the Earth’s former pole was situated somewhere in Central Greenland and that around 11,500 BP Earth’s pole, over the course of about 400 days, migrated from Central Greenland to its present location in the Arctic Sea.
This shift of Earth’s pole from Central Greenland to the Arctic Sea agrees well with the data presented within the shafts of the Great Pyramid, which show a shift of around this magnitude. Because Earth is a sphere, the pole rapidly migrating through the body of Earth to a new geographical location (as opposed to an axial tilt) would result in Giza being shifted only by around 5.4 degrees to its present location at around 30ºN.
But it seems there is more to this story. In 1934, Australian astronomer, George F. Dodwell, having analyzed numerous historical measurements of Earth’s axis of obliquity (its angle of tilt) stretching back thousands of years, concluded that in ancient times (at least as far back as 2345 BC), Earth’s pole had been more upright (from the present axis tilt of around 23.44 degrees) with an axis tilt of only around 5.5 degrees (http://www.setterfield.org/Dodwell_manuscript_1.html).
Furthermore, Dodwell concluded that at some point in the ancient past the Earth’s axis had suddenly been tilted by some 20.5 degrees to around 26 degrees. Again, as a result of the prevailing scientific view of his time, Dodwell’s research was to be largely ignored because scientists at this time could not conceive of a means by which Earth’s pole could rapidly change without the Earth itself being laid waste.
With regard to the question of this essay, the findings of Dodwell’s research would seem to be quite significant for, at a stroke, the solution to the enigma of the Great Pyramid’s two stellar ages now becomes apparent.
Using Dodwell’s analysis, it is now possible to present Earth’s orbital dynamics, as they would have been pre and post this ancient pole shift event.
We can see that before the pole shift event, the Queen’s Chamber (southern shaft) was inclined at 39.6 degrees while, according to Dodwell, Earth’s axis was formerly tilted at around 5.5 degrees, thus an angular measure of this shaft’s inclination to the equator of 39.5º + 5.5º = 45.1º angular distance.
As Earth’s axis tilted in space from 5.5º to around 26º (and, simultaneously, the pole migrated from Central Greenland to the Arctic Sea), the angular distance from the upper 45º inclined shaft to the equator now becomes 45º + 26º = 71º.
These two figures (45.1º and 71º) present to us the pre and post pole shift angular distances of the star Al Nilam at the Giza local horizon. The difference between these two values will then tell us the distance this star shifted in the heavens after the pole shift event; i.e., 71º – 45.1º = 25.9º shift. Thus, from a starting altitude at the local horizon of Giza, the star Al Nilam was displaced in altitude by 25.9º; i.e., 39.6 – 25.9 = 13.7º.
In summary then, as the Belt stars themselves pivoted from 38º to 44º, the altitude of the star Al Nilam was shifted from 39.6º altitude to around 13.7º above the Giza horizon. If we now check this with modern star-mapping software, we find that these values are confirmed.
Thus the enigma of the Great Pyramid’s two stellar ages is solved. In 11,750 BC, Earth’s pole, from an initial inclination of around 5.5º, migrated through the body of Earth from Central Greenland to the Arctic Sea (present pole). At the same time, Earth’s pole tilted in space by around 20.5º. The effect of these two different pole motions was to change the pivot angle of the Orion Belt stars from 38º to 44º while, simultaneously, relocating the star Al Nilam from 39.6º altitude to around 13.6º.
The overall effect of this event was to ‘decouple’ the former pivot of the Belt stars from their former altitude—these two stellar alignments have essentially, as a result of the ancient pole shift event, become separated from each other, hence why we find the Belt stars in 2500 BC at the correct 45º altitude but with the wrong pivot angle of 73º and, conversely, in 11,750 BC we find the Belt pivoted at the correct 44º angle but with the star Al Nilam not at an altitude of 45º but at 13.6º.
Scott Creighton is the author of The Great Pyramid Hoax, The Conspiracy to Conceal the True History of Ancient Egypt (Bear &Company, December, 2016). For more on his reinterpretation of the ancient pyramids of Egypt, see Atlantis Rising #120, November/December, 2016.