.Data 2 : - contains further data, sometimes as diagrams, sometimes just numbers. Mostly drawn from the full document - 'Stonehenge 2020 - The Way Forward'.
'Its Numbers that Count'
Data 2:-(Part (A))
The Relationship Between Stonehenge and The Great Pyramid at Giza
Here I can show that these two monuments are based upon an identical theme of astronomical principle. The design of each, the ground plan, the data used for their design and construction, and their function is the same. Unsurprisingly the resulting information which each supplies is the same.
The diagram, above, is of a cross-section of the cosmic sky or Celestial hemi-sphere portrayed with an observer at a fixed central point which could be anywhere on the surface of the Earth. The arc of the hemi-sphere can be divided into equal sections by an observer - as many as suits the observer. The equal sections can be given values by the observer - again the observer's choice - the result is to order the arc of the celestial sphere into an organised system of measurement that allows individual points in the sky to be noted. The actual measuring of individual points is easily done by sighting upwards along the angled part of a n implement made by hingeing two straight wooden sticks together and keeping the lower stick flat-level with the ground. In this example modern units of degrees and a modern division of a half-circle into 180 degrees is shown.
The basic concept shown here of the altitude grid with its steadily changing representation of fixed unit hemisphere subdivision is the basis of the interpretation of both Stonehenge and The Giza Pyramid. It is a common feature to both. Whether this proves a link of concept and information between designer and builder I leave to the reader to decide, I merely describe the factual situation common to both. I can say that the celestial result is identical for both as will be seen below.
The angles of altitude identified in the concept of the sub-divided, or calibrated, vertical cosmic hemi-sphere in the first diagram can now be represented on a flat horizontal surface such as the ground or a parchment / skin type material The horizon surrounding the observer is altitude 0 degrees. As it surrounds the observer it is logical to represent as a circle. The equal subdivisions ascending the side of the arc can be 'dropped-down onto the developing horizontal 'plan' by means of a plum-bob attached to the top end of the adjustable vertical altitude angle measuring stick. The adjustable altitude measuring device can be pointed to any and all parts of the horizon, and therefore any selected angle of altitude will eventually be represented as a concentric circle within the flat horizon circle. Therefore a 'plan' and concept of a system whereby the cosmic hemisphere above can be represented as a flat grid of circles below, is now developing. On to this grid any celestial object above can now be marked using the altitude measuring device. Its horizontal direction will correspond to its azimuth bearing. A flat picture of the heavens above can begin to develop. 'As above so below'. One very noteworthy detail is that the circles are not now at equal spacing on the flat plan but rather follow a systematic widening as altitude increases because a circular object has been represented onto a flat surface. This is the foremost and most important concept of the altitude grid.
Stonehenge, Wiltshire, U.K.
(a);--The basic axis lines of Stonehenge onto the altitude grid. Two basic axes - N-S (meridian) and the main Stonehenge axis past the Heelstone towards Summer solstice sunrise.
The Great Pyramid, Giza.
(a):--For interpretation of the Great Pyramid the starting point is identical to that used for Stonehenge. The altitude grid is the basis for the astronomy, this time contained within the Pyramid perimeter represented by the square. As for Stonehenge the meridian is shown.
(b):--The plan of the stone formations based around the two axes.
(c):-- The Sun track 0ver Stonehenge
Latitude 51*10'42" N
(c):-- The Sun track added to the Great Pyramid.
(Also added is the King's Chamber.)
The sun track is added in but because the Pyramid is closer to the equator it crosses closer to the Pyramid centre; i.e. at a higher altitude on the grid. The King's chamber is added at the correct position. The correspondence between track and location of chamber is immediately clear. The identical principle with Stonehenge is obvious.
(d):--Track of Regulus. Once again we plot an orbit track over the Trilithons - this time for Regulus. Because Regulus, in B.C.2340 was about one degree higher in the sky than the solstice sun, its orbit track was slightly higher than that of the sun. Therefore the orbit track ran fractionally closer to the centre of Stonehenge. Notably it precisely fits Trilithon uprights 52 and 53 as it enters the Horseshoe (the reason for their positions?) before passing above the Great Trilithon archway and with its footprint further into the archway itself. As Regulus seems to fit the shape and positioning of the Horseshoe better than the sun this could mean that Regulus had higher priority than the sun.
(d):-The Pyramid central area enlarged. Also shown now is the orbit track for Regulus, and for 'little star' H833.828, (previously H833.1062 but see main document), the distant and obscure member of the Regulus Group that appears to be the objective of the construction of Stonehenge. (See - 'Stonehenge 2020 - The Way Forward' - full text on this site, page 2.
(e):-- The cross-section on the Back-Axis of Stonehenge, at azimuth 230*, shows how the Great Trilithon is placed relative to the grid-circle line for altitude 55* corresponding to its altitude at this azimuth. The actual visual line of sight of the mid-summer sun corresponds to the front edge of the Altar Stone. Everything is very 'tidy'. Regulus would have been c. 1* higher and would, therefore, been more central to the Trilithon footprint. We can suspect that it had higher priority than the sun.
(e);-- Cross-section of Pyramid along N-S meridian. Because of the three dimensional shape of the pyramid it is worthwhile considering this cross-section. It can be seen how the relevant orbit tracks stand upon the correct points of the altitude grid. The result is a three-dimensional model on an enormous scale of this tiny part of our galaxy encompassing the Regulus Group. So much work. such vast effort for what purpose? Note how Thuban, the Egyptian 'Pole-Star' sits at the pyramid entrance but just correctly above its altitude value. We are led to conclude that the entrance was planned to be exactly at the point of intersection of grid value and sloping surface of the side. The Pyramid may be big but everything is exactly correctly placed.
1)-The two monuments are comparable in purpose in so far as they both focus upon Regulus / the Regulus Group. The principle of the Altitude Grid upon which the design is based is identical. 'As Above, So Below'.
2)-Although completion dates are close (mid 3rd millennium B.C.) there is a difference of c. 2 centuries, the Pyramid having been built first. Precise difference is difficult to define. Certainly with Stonehenge there is almost certainly a lead up of several centuries before the final Sarsen Stonehenge construction, and during this period there must have been much intellectual work proceeding to acquire data, information and knowledge. This aspect is not known for the Great Pyramid.
3)- There is also a difference between the two in so far as the Great Pyramid was a 'near perfection', gigantic, three-dimensional model(?) of a specific part of the Cosmos - the Regulus zone. Sarsen Stonehenge, constructed perhaps one or two centuries later, also identifies and focuses primarily on the Regulus Group by the physical means of combining many features of the Heelstone with geographical location and astronomical aspect as I have described. But Stonehenge, exclusively, also possesses the Binary numbers. There is a degree / level of sophistication here that is far above the physical level of the Regulus picture in each monument. It suggests that, between construction of the two monuments, there was a development of idea, of thought, and of OBJECTIVE or PURPOSE that possibly reflects a changing development of INTENTION within the mind of the intellect that was at work at this time bringing forth these two. This is where we might well 'dig', consider, seek more answers to how all of this was achieved, and WHY?
(f):--The central area enlarged. For greater detail and discussion see the complete text. The astronomical and architectural principles have been the same as used at Stonehenge. And it has achieved the same result!