There are many ancient structures, like pyramids and temples, around the world positioned in such a way that their footprint points precisely to the current North pole.
The majority of the temples and pyramids were built in the middle of nowhere.
Now what would you do when you've all the space to position a pyramid?
Unless you've no idea what you're doing, there's only one logical answer to that question - you would align it to the geographical poles. Why?
When you want to study and predict solar cycles, moon cycles, solar eclipses, equinoxes, earth's motions (obliquity, precession, eccentricity of orbit), or any other phenomenon in the sky, you must point your instrument to the only sure point - the rotation axis of the earth. Which is the geographical North pole. If you don't do that you will introduce another variable into the equations, which makes them unsolvable.
But besides this, it also appeared that many other structures of importance are aligned to the geographical North pole without a clear reason. Pure symmetry between sunrise and sunset might have been one of the reasons.
This article is probably difficult for many readers. When you're able to work your way through it, you might become aware how wrong our history is taught to us.
What does it mean when the majority of the pyramids and temples are not pointing to the current North Pole? How likely is it then that they were pointed to former North Poles? This can be sorted out by using the power of mathematics.
In this series of articles I will prove that the former North pole was on Greenland. The structures that are aligned to this former pole are therefore older than assumed by archaeologists.
Because these pyramids from all over the world were collectively pointing to another location. What else can that be than another pole? And how long ago could that have been? It won't be easy to argue against this conclusion. Some will try to ridicule it, but it will be much harder to refute it. Unless you're able to prove that the mathematics that is used here, combined with the approach, is wrong.
The claim is extraordinary, the proof is extraordinary as well.
Belief is strong. We believe that the history as it is taught to us is correct. Even when mathematics proves it is wrong, we tend to keep believing that the history as it is pounded in our brains is correct.
This is what we might call conditioning. A conditioned mind has troubles to interpret outcomes of mathematics that deviates from our believes. No matter how solid the prove is, we tend to fall back into our old believe of the trusty old thing. To get used to another idea takes time.
At first hand I intended to publish a book, for which people would have to pay money to purchase it. But after some thinking I decided it would be better to give all knowledge and data away for free, for everyone available who has access to internet, including all the data. Some parts of the data are available via Mediafire. You will find the links below. More data links and research results will follow during the course of this series of articles.
- Why is Greenland Covered in Ice?
Greenland is covered in ice and no one knows why. Science has explanations, but they are absurd and unscientific. The most rational explanation is explored in this article which is part of a larger series.
- How Old Are Pyramids Around the World?
Determining the age of a pyramid is not as easy as it seems. Stones cannot be dated in any way to determine the age of the structure. The most common way is to date artefacts found in pyramids.
- Lintong +12 other structures in China (pink line)
- Borobudur on Central Java (dark blue line)
- Angkor Wat +12 other structures in Cambodia (yellow line)
- Konark Sun Temple in India (orange line)
- Sri Rangam temple +1 other structure in India (red line)
- Harappa in Pakistan (green line)
- Bar'am +2 other structures in Israel (white line)
- Giza in Egypt (green line)
- Tiwanaku in Bolivia (purple line)
- Naranjo in Quatemala +3 other structures in Mexico (light blue line)
Total: 43 of 228 (including 3 additional ones in the database)
The question is: How likely is it that 43 of the random selected 228 ancient structures cross an area on the North Pole within a certain radius?
When you want to prove a theory of this magnitude, it makes no sense to pick just some structures. No, the structures you must pick must be monumental, big, ancient, and perhaps religious of nature. Don't pick just some random buildings, like the Notre Dame in Paris or some other cathedral somewhere.
But did you know that the Vatican is almost perfectly East-West aligned, and therefore to the current North pole? Whatever the reason was, it seemed important enough to align it this way in the middle of a crowded metropolis. The Vatican isn't on the list however. It's much too young.
Picking just some church in the middle of a town, proves nothing. The location of the sun and stars didn't matter for them, let alone the North pole. The church had to be fitted in the spatial possibilities of the city at that time.
The criteria of the ancient sites:
- square or rectangular,
- the larger the better (= of more importance),
- preferably isolated (= not influenced in alignment),
- alignment is measurable.
During the research there were a few alignment clusters found. Alignment clusters are a first indication of a possible former pole.
Some sites in Mexico comprise a large collection of pyramids that are criss-cross aligned as if they were just dumped down there.
But the chance that a few structures on one site cross other alignment cluster(s) is very, very small. It's almost zero. But if that occurs, it means it was not accidental. It was engineered.
These sites can be interpreted as sites that were rebuild after a catastrophe - a crustal shift. These structures can tell us an interesting story what might have happened in the past.
We know where the current geographical North Pole is.
So, we can measure in Google Earth the angle under which structures were constructed in relation to the geo pole. We can at least verify the accuracy of our measurements.
Archaeologists think they have verified things, but the fact is they're completely groping in the dark, without even being aware of it.
The first thing you need to know is how accurately a structure can be measured in Google Earth.
Take for example the Great pyramid of Giza. We know it is perfectly aligned to the geo pole (within ±0.05°). So, we can verify our framework on this.
Experimental measurements on different parts of Giza showed that the average accuracy of measurement of Giza in Google Earth resulted in an error of ±0.20°. The pyramids of Giza are relatively easy to measure; the satellite photos are sharp and the bases of the pyramids are relatively clear.
There are structures that are harder to measure accurately, because the satellite footage is blurry, or the angle under which the objects were photographed was not vertically (the baseline is then the most safe area to measure).
For some of these sites archaeological maps with a North arrow indicator were used as a cross reference to verify the outcomes of the measurement in Google Earth.
Experiments with measurements in Google Earth compared to maps of ancient sites showed a standard deviation of:
- σ=68.2%: ±0.66° = ±0.7°
- 2σ=95.4%: ±1.33°= ±1.3°
- 3σ=99.7%: ±1.97°= ±2.0°
3σ (99.7%) was accepted as reliable enough for the calculations: ±2.0°. This also includes the error of measurement. Although Giza could be measured much more exact, only ±2.0° (total angle is 4.0°) was accepted as the standard accuracy for the whole project, and that counted for Giza as well.
When we intend to find former geographical poles, we have to be aware of a possible accumulation of errors.
- When the pyramid builders established the geo pole many thousands years ago, they made a little error in their measurements. Even with our GPS systems today we have to deal with a certain error of about ± 50 meters.
- When the pyramid builders constructed their pyramids, they again made a small error between their perception of true North and the actual alignment of the stones.
- When we measure the pyramid many thousands years later, the position of the pyramid might have changed a little bit, due to geological processes, especially when earth crust displacements appear to be real.
- When we measure the pyramid many thousands years later, we again make small errors in our measurements.
It is possible that all these errors cancel eachother out and nicely result in some perfection, but it is most likely that we'll find an erratic pattern of 'noise'. This noise is the build-up of the above mentioned errors.
We have to deal with this in a clever way.
The chance that one of the pyramids of Giza coincidentally points Northward is 1 to 22.5 (90÷4.0). The chance that all three of them are coincidental aligned to the North pole is almost ZERO. To be exact: 0,0088% (0.04443 × 100%). So, Giza altogether was no coincidence.
The claim that all three were meant to be aligned to the North pole is 99.9912% sure.
The purpose, like with the alignment of the Vatican, is something totally different, and is open to any speculation, which might differ from structure to structure.
Did you know that the White House is also exactly aligned to the North pole? That also is done on purpose, although the reason why it is done might be unclear to us. But that shouldn't hinder any research to the phenomenon itself.
When it comes to structures of power, it seems as if the North pole is almost inescapable. Structures of greater importance seem to be aligned to the pole. When they're not pointed to the North pole, they were more or less subjected to their immediate surroundings, and that makes them of lesser importance.
Most pyramids have four sides. Since we don't know for sure the purpose of a pyramid, we cannot discriminate one side over another. So, the angle in which it can be uniquely arranged is 90° (360°÷4).
With the average accuracy of ±2.0° in which we could measure the structures, there are within the angle of 90° 22.5 discriminating steps, which makes a chance of 4% in the defined framework that a pyramid is accidentally pointing to the North pole.
But there's no 90° of freedom. The claim is that the pole shifted from 50°N to 90°N, which is an angle of 40° (see drawing). Within this angle there's 10% (4.0°÷40°×100%) chance that a measured structure is accidentally pointing North.
There are 228 measured structures in the database, from which 196 are within the angle of 40° (50°N to 90°N). Hence there's a 'standard' chance that 19.6 of the structures (196×10%) are pointing North. So, when we find 20 structures clustering within an area of 4 degrees, even if this is Greenland, we cannot derive a special status from that.
Of the randomly selected structures, there were 43 ancient structures pointing to the current geo North pole. The chance for this event is very small, to be more precise: 0.000042%. We now have to make a twist. The probability that the current North pole is correctly defined at its current location is 99.99996 sure%.
When another cluster of this magnitude shows up it is surely one of the former North poles, with a certainty of almost 100%. Let's have a look.
: n=196; x=43; p=0.1
How large is the chance that more 50% of all the alignments are running over Greenland, which is just 25% of a quarter hemisphere? When we're trying to find another pole, is Greenland our best bet.
You can find former North poles by following the alignment patterns of ancient structures, and then calculate the probability that it actually is a former North Pole location. Just follow the patterns of pyramid alignments that are not pointing to the current North pole.
But since we only know the current North pole for sure, and we are not sure where to look, it is best to go from coarse to fine. If there are hints that the former North pole was on Greenland, the first thing that could be done is looking for the amount of alignment that intersect Greenland as a whole.
The amount of intersections on Greenland is 112 of the total 196. The probability for this clustering to occur coincidental is immensely small: 2.9×10-21 %. We can be 100% certain that the former North pole was somewhere on Greenland. Or better, Greenland was once on the North pole.
We don't know yet where to look on Greenland, but that can be done by following a simple logic. Going from course to fine is the best approach.
How? We have to connect pyramids somehow by using a kind of 'independent intermediator' - the reference line.
: n=196; x=112; p=0.25
When we draw a vertical line towards the South pole at a longitude of 45 degrees, we can examine how many alignments intersect that line. The peaks in the graph show the most likely locations of the former poles.
It happens too often, especially on the internet, that people claim to have found a connection between ancient objects by drawing some lines between them. In most cases that means absolutely nothing, and we cannot draw any conclusions from it.
With 228 pyramids we can have (228-1)2 possible connections. That might be about 51,500 intersection points. That would be an immense scatterplot with tons of useless noise in it. What conclusions could we draw from that? And why wouldn't we organize the research logically at first hand?
We can find an intersection point between two of the most enigmatic pyramids on the planet, Teotihuacan and Giza. They intersect near Kongsfjord that lies in Northern Norway. We won't find anything useful at that location.
This intersection point has not any significance whatsoever. We can connect absolutely different time frames to eachother, but we cannot draw any conclusion from it. We cannot just connect some pyramids onto eachother, without using a well thought out reference.
The reference will lead us to groups of pyramids that we can safely connect to each other, which leads to a definitive location of a former pole.
The current North pole is easy to find. It is the highest peak in the graph. This graph shows three other peaks. There are three former Geo poles found. A fourth pole is also found, but that required a mathematical trick
On the reference line we found 38 intersections between latitude 71 and 74. The standard probability is 20 intersections. We can calculate the likelihood that such a large cluster forms coincidental by using the binomial formula.
- n = number of trials = 196
- p = probability of success = 0.1
- x = number of successes = 38
P(x) = 3.9×10-5 ≡ 0.03%.
The probability that a cluster of this magnitude forms coincidental is 0.03%. Conversely we can say it is artificial constructed. It was clearly pointing to one location, and therefore most likely a former North pole, since there was no relation between the randomly distributed pyramids around the globe.
The same situation was emulated by using Monte Carlo simulations, which gave the same results. We can be sure this formula expresses this situation correctly.
Intersections with 45 Lon Line
Intersection Clusters on Greenland
A group of pyramids that are apparently aligned to Greenland form a colossal intersection cluster between latitude 71° and 74°. The weighed average of this cluster is at 72.5°N, 45°W.
A second cluster was found between latitude 75° and 78°. The weighed average of this cluster is at 76.4°N, 45°W.
A third cluster was found between latitude 63° and 66°. The weighed average of this cluster is at 65.0°N, 45°W.
Greenland went in a few steps over the North pole. It is possible to correlate the magnitude of the steps with the temperature proxies, δD or δ018, respectively found in ice cores of Vostok and Dome-C (Antarctica). The similarities are clear. From this we can directly derive the time frames of the crustal shifts which are clearly related to the Milankovitch cycles.
In a series of next articles I will show you in an increasing detail what happened in our distant past.
© 2016 by Buildreps
First published: February 21, 2016
- Database of Intersections Pyramids
The database contains the used data of 228 pyramids and temples spread over the world. The data contains the intersection coordinates with the 45W Longitude line. The data also contains some specific info about the buildings.
Thanks to: http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com