Orientation of Pyramids to Former North Poles


There are many ancient monuments and sites oriented to the current geographic pole and this is called cardinal alignment or cardinal orientation. But what does it mean when more than 80% of the ancient monuments like pyramids and temples are not oriented to the current geographical pole? What is it that archaeologists and geologists have categorically overlooked?


Fig. 1: There are many ancient temples and pyramids oriented to the current North pole. Of the 552 selected structures in our database, 70 are exactly oriented to the current North pole. How coincidental is that? | © 2016-2018 by Mario Buildreps


Fig. 2: Tiwanaku (Kalasasaya) is oriented to the current North pole within ±0.2° accuracy. There’s much debate about Tiwanaku and who built it.

Why Are Temples and Pyramids Cardinally Oriented?

Around the world, there are many ancient structures, such as pyramids and temples, that are positioned in such a way that their footprint points precisely to the current North pole.

Most of the temples and pyramids were built in the middle of nowhere.

What would you do if you had the freedom to position a pyramid anyhow and anywhere? Unless you have no idea what you are doing, there is only one logical answer to that question: You would orient it to the geographical pole.

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 phenomena in the sky, you must point your instrument to the only sure point – the rotation axis of the earth. This would be the geographical North pole. If you do not do that, you will introduce another variable into the equations, and that makes them much harder to solve.

It is also evident that there may be many other structures of importance that are oriented to the geographical North pole without a clear reason. Pure symmetry between sunrise and sunset might have been one of these reasons. We happen to love the sun for many different reasons.

This article might be difficult for many readers. When you can work your way through it, you will probably become aware that our history, the way it was taught to us, is very much in error.

Earth crust shifts are real, and pyramids are much, much older than we are led to believe. By using mathematics, our real history reveals itself without any doubt whatsoever.


Orientation of the Largest Cathedrals in the World

Fig. 3: The largest cathedrals in the world are, without exception, cardinally or almost cardinally oriented. | © 2016-2018 Mario Buildreps


How Mathematics Proves Our History is Wrongly Interpreted

What does it mean when most of the pyramids and temples are not oriented to the current North pole? How likely is it then that they were oriented to former North poles? This can be sorted out by using the power of mathematics.

In this series of articles, we will prove that Greenland was the location of former (geographic) North poles. The structures that are oriented to these former poles are therefore older than assumed by archaeologists. Why?

Because these pyramids from all over the world were collectively oriented to another geographic pole – and that was a very long time ago. We are not talking here about just a few thousand years. No, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of years. The foundations of most pyramids are older than 100,000 years. Their top layers might have been renovated many times – but the orientation was invariably left intact.

This claim is extraordinary, the proof is extraordinary as well. The mathematics behind the proof is extremely accurate and will be published in a book that is currently in the making.


Orientation of Important Observatories in the World

Fig. 4: Most of the observatories are cardinally oriented and that has a good reason: Astronomers have to constantly orient themselves. A correct building orientation helps to make their task much easier. We know the ancients built many observatories around the world and only a few of these are cardinally oriented. Where were the non-cardinal oriented observatories then oriented to? Archaeologists have pondered this question for many centuries. | © 2016-2018 Mario Buildreps


Fig. 5: Two boats sailing a steady course will intersect at a certain point. We can calculate this intersection point. When many sailing boats are intersecting at the same spot, would that be coincidence or circumstance? The same principle accounts for pyramid alignments. | © 2016-2018 by Mario Buildreps

Belief is Strong

Belief systems resist change. We invariably believe that history, as it is taught to us, is correct. Even when mathematics proves that what we have been taught is wrong, we tend to keep believing that the history, as it was pounded into our brains, is correct.

This is what we call conditioning. A conditioned mind has trouble to interpret outcomes of mathematics that deviate from the programmed beliefs. No matter how solid the proof is, we tend to fall back into our old beliefs of the trusty old paradigm. To get used to another idea and to muster the will to overcome denial takes much time and effort.


Temples and Pyramids Exactly Oriented to the Current North Pole (Refer to Fig. 1)

  • 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)
  • Pyramids of Giza and Temple of Horus in Egypt (green line)
  • Tiwanaku in Bolivia (purple line)
  • Naranjo in Guatemala +3 other structures in Mexico (light blue line)
  • Conimbriga (Portugal) and Lumbini (Nepal)
  • Three pyramids in Mexico, Mayapan and Ek’ Balam
  • 24 other structures around the world

Total: 70 structures

Fig. 6: Borobudur is probably one of the most accurately oriented temples in the world – within ±0.1° accuracy as aligned to the current North pole.

The question is: What is the probability that 70 of the randomly selected global 552 (ancient) structures are coincidentally oriented to the current geographic pole (within a range of 3 degrees)? The probability is 1 to 1.79×1021, which is an incredibly small chance.

What does that mean? It means that the orientation of many structures to the geographic North pole is NOT coincidental. Hence, it was done intentionally. The reason? Why is the White House perfectly oriented to the Cardinals? Or why is the Taj Mahal perfectly cardinally oriented? Or why is the Vatican cardinally oriented? Or why are most observatories cardinally oriented?

We can be sure that the orientation of these 70 temples and pyramids was done on purpose, and therefore we can say with 100% certainty that the geographic pole is where the orientation of these pyramids and temples is based uponIt is crucial to grasp this part. We can extend the same methodology to other ancient structures which are not cardinally oriented and examine how they relate to each other. With our method, we are able to discern former geographic poles from the orientation patterns of these ancient structures. Our powerful mathematical method delivers 100% proof of former geographic poles.


Fig. 7: When two pyramids are pointing to true North, we can be certain that they belong to the same relative time period. We now know that this period is our current crustal position. | © 2016-2018 by Mario Buildreps


Structures of Power Are Often Cardinally Oriented

Fig. 8: Many of the world’s most significant political buildings are cardinally oriented. Why? Ask the president? He probably doesn’t know how to provide the correct answer. Is a perfectly cardinally-oriented building the expression of a desire to dominate the masses or perhaps a world event? Hardly! | © 2016-2018 by Mario Buildreps


Do not Select Just Any Buildings

Fig. 9: Angkor Wat is oriented within 0.2 degrees to the current North pole.

When you want to prove a theory of this magnitude, it makes no sense to pick just any structures. No, the structures you must pick need to be monumental, big, ancient, imposing, and perhaps religious in nature. You would not want to pick some random buildings, such as the Notre Dame in Paris or another cathedral somewhere.

Did you know that the Vatican is almost perfectly East-West oriented, and therefore oriented to the current geographic pole? Whatever the reason was, it seemed important enough to orient it this way in the middle of a crowded metropolis. But the Vatican is not on our list – it is much too young.

Selecting just a random church in the middle of a town proves nothing. The location of the sun and stars did not matter for them, let alone the North pole. The church had to be placed in the spatial limitations of its surroundings at that time.

Our criteria for selecting ancient sites:

  • undoubtedly ancient
  • square or rectangular
  • the larger the better (= of more importance)
  • preferably isolated (= not influenced in orientation)
  • orientation is measurable.


Seemingly Criss-Cross Oriented

Fig. 10: Measuring the orientation of a pyramid is never 100% accurate. You must deal with a certain small error. | © 2016-2018 Mario Buildreps

During our research, we found 4 other orientation clusters. An orientation cluster is an indication of a possible former geographic pole. To be certain about the validity of individual clusters, much more research was done to come to an ironclad conclusion. You might want to read the other articles on this website to get a full picture of the method we used.

Pyramids from all over the world are oriented to just a few locations that form data clusters on a so-called NORTH-SOUTH reference line. This line is explained further on in this article.

Some sites in Mexico comprise a large collection of pyramids that are criss-cross oriented as if they were just dumped somewhere. But the chance that a few structures on one site cross other alignment clusters is very, very small. It is almost zero. But if that occurs, it means it was not accidental. The ancient site was reoriented to another pole.

These sites can be interpreted as sites that were rebuilt after a catastrophe – a crustal shift. These structures can tell us an interesting story what might have happened in the past.


The Accuracy of Measurement

We know where the current geographical North pole is located. In Google Earth we can measure the angle of orientation with which structures were built in relation to the geo pole. In this way, we can verify the accuracy of our measurements.

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 almost perfectly aligned to the geo pole (within ±0.05°). So, we can base our methodology 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 footage is sharp and the bases of the pyramids are relatively clear.


Choosing the Error of Measurement

There are structures which are more difficult to measure accurately because of a blurry satellite footage, or the angle under which the objects were photographed was not vertical (the baseline is the safest 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%: ±0.5°
  • 2σ=95.4%: ±1.1°
  • 3σ=99.7%: ±1.5°

3σ (99.7%) was accepted as reliable enough for the calculations: ±1.5°. This also includes the error of measurement and glitches in the footage. Although Giza could be measured much more exactly, only ±1.5° (total angle is 1.5+1.5=3.0°) was accepted as the standard accuracy for the whole project, and that counted for Giza as well.


Accumulation of Errors

Fig. 11: Accumulation of errors can result in disasters.

When we intend to find former geographical poles, we must be aware of the possible accumulation of errors, such as:

  • When the pyramid builders established the geo pole many thousands of years ago, they made a little error in their measurements. Even with our GPS systems today we must deal with a potential error of about ± 15 meters.
  • When the pyramid builders constructed their pyramids, they again made a small error between their perception of true North and the actual orientation of the stones.
  • When we measure the pyramid many thousands of years later, the position of the pyramid might have changed a little bit, due to geological processes, especially when earth crust displacements appeared to be at work.
  • When we measure the pyramid many thousands of years later, we again make small errors in our measurements.

It is possible that all these errors cancel each other out and nicely turn out to be perfect, but it is most likely that we will find an erratic pattern of ‘noise’. This noise is the accumulation of the above-mentioned errors, and is ultimately the root of the sum of squares: the combined error Δn =  (√(x12+x22+x32+x42 …+…xn2).


Cardinal Versus Non-Cardinal Orientations

Fig. 12: When we measure more than 550 ancient objects chosen from all over the world, we will find a stunning result: Mathematical proof that the earth’s crust has shifted following the rhythm of Earth’s eccentric orbit. | © 2016-2018 Mario Buildreps


Probability That Giza Was Meant to Point North

The chance that one of the pyramids of Giza is oriented cardinally by coincidence is 1 to 30 (90÷3.0).

Fig. 13: When alignments are measured under a large angle, the error will remain small. | © 2016-2018 Mario Buildreps

The chance that all three of them are coincidentally oriented to the North pole is almost ZERO. To be exact: 0,0037% ((3.0/90)3 × 100%). Therefore, Giza’s orientation was certainly no coincidence.

The claim that all three were meant to be oriented to the current geographic pole is 99.9963% sure.


How to Define the Chances on Intentional Orientations


Most pyramids have four sides. Since we do not know for certain 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). We cannot tell which orientation regarding the geographic pole has a higher priority, so we can only define structures 45 degrees left of the geo pole and 45 degrees to the right of the geo pole. This is the mathematical unambiguous basis for our method.

Fig. 14: Measuring objects that are aligned under a small angle results in a larger error. | © 2016 by Buildreps

With the average accuracy of ±1.5° with which we could measure our chosen structures, there are certain discriminating steps within the angle of 90° 30 which creates a standard chance of 3.33% in the defined methodology that a pyramid is accidentally pointing to the North pole.

There are currently 552 measured structures in our database. Hence, it follows that we can count on a standard chance that 18 of these structures (552×3.33%) are pointing North. Thus, when we find 18 structures clustering within an area of 3 degrees along the intersection line we cannot claim a special status based on that. But when this number of random clustering approaches 30 or even 40, the probability of coincidence rapidly diminishes towards ZERO. We can distill from these combined patterns the conclusive proof that the crust, ultimately the North pole, has shifted and that pyramids are much older.

Why much older? Because such a devastating and catastrophic event would not have happened completely unnoticed over the last several millennia.

Of the randomly selected structures, there were 70 ancient structures in the database pointing to the current geographical North pole. As we have already shown above, the chance for this to be mere luck is ZERO.

When another cluster of this magnitude shows up, it is surely one of the former North poles, with a certainty of almost 100%. Let us have a look.

Fig. 15: How large is the chance that 43% of all the alignments are running over Greenland, which is just 24% of a quarter hemisphere? When we are trying to find another pole, Greenland is our best bet. | © 2016-2018 Mario Buildreps


Finding the Other Poles

We can find former geo poles by following the orientation patterns of ancient structures and by calculating the probability that it is a former geo pole location. We follow the patterns of pyramid orientations which are not pointing to the current geo poles.

But since we only know the current geo poles for sure, and we are uncertain where to look, it is best to go from coarse to fine. If there are hints that the former geographic North pole might have been on Greenland, the first thing that could be done is to look for the number of orientations that intersect on Greenland as a whole.

The number of (pyramidal orientations) intersections on Greenland is 230 of the total of 552. The probability for such large amount of data to cluster in such a way is insanely small: 1 to 4.95×10210[1]. We can be very confident that a former geo North pole was somewhere on Greenland. Or better, Greenland was once situated on a former geographical North pole. We can claim this with 100% certainty, even if we do not know anything about geology, archaeology, or some other scientific discipline. We only need mathematics to find the highest potential of truth.

We do not know yet where to look on Greenland. That can be done by following simple logic. How? By connecting the pyramids by using an ‘independent intermediator’ – an intersection line. This line represents the rough path the pole took over the last 400,000 years.

[1]: n=552; x=230; p=0.24; q=0.76


Creating an Intersection Line Over Greenland

Fig. 16: When we draw a vertical line towards the South pole at a longitude of 47 degrees, which is over the middle of Greenland, we can analyze how many ancient alignments intersect that line. The peaks in the graph show the most likely locations of the former poles. | © 2016-2018 Mario Buildreps


Why Not Connect Pyramids Directly?

It happens 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 that.

With 552 pyramids we can have ½×(5522-552) unique connections. With 152,076 intersection points, it would be an immensely unreadable scatter plot with over 90% of useless noise in it. What conclusions could we draw from that? And why wouldn’t we organize the research more logically in the first place?

We can find an intersection point between two of the most enigmatic pyramids on the planet, Teotihuacan, and Giza. They intersect near Kongsfjord located in Northern Norway. We will find nothing useful at that location. Perhaps even more importantly, we would not know why these pyramids and temples were “un-cardinally” oriented, to begin with.

The intersection lines of ancient structure orientations will lead to clusters of pyramids that we can safely group together leading to a definitive location of a former pole, a node of sorts. All the pyramids clustering around the same node belong to the same period.


Former Pole Locations

Fig. 17: The analysis of the full dataset of ancient structures delivered spectacular results. The percentages are almost 100% and they correspond to the latitudes vs temperature plots and thus correlate precisely with the last glaciation cycles. | © 2016-2018 Mario Buildreps


How Probability is Determined

Fig. 18: the binomial formula for determining probability in complex situations

For example, on the reference line, we found 52 intersections between latitude 71 and 73. The standard probability is 18 intersections. We can calculate the likelihood that such a large cluster can be formed coincidentally by using the binomial formula.

  • n = number of trials = 552
  • p = probability of success = 0.03333 (3 degrees out of 90 degrees)
  • x = number of successes = 52

P(x) = 1.05×10-11

The probability that a data cluster of this magnitude is formed coincidentally is 1 to 95.1 billion. Conversely, we can say it is artificially constructed. Why? Because the probability it was intentional is ≈ 100%. All these randomly distributed ancient structures were clearly pointing to one location, namely to a former geographic North pole because the geographic pole is the only transcending geographical feature wherever you are on the globe at any given time.

The same situation was emulated by using Monte Carlo simulations, which gave the same results. We can be sure this method expresses this situation correctly.


Intersection Clusters = Proximity of Former Geo North Poles

Latitude Intersections with 47.1W Lon line   Probability Former Geo pole 
76.1°N 62 100%
72.3°N 52 100%
64.0°N 64 99.9999993%
52.1°N 52  99.99554%


Mathematical Clustering Over Greenland

Fig. 19: The clustering over Greenland is formed by 11,000 intersection points and delivers instantaneous proof of an unbelievable reality: Four former geographic poles. The distances between the nodes correspond very intimately with the temperature changes of the last series of ice ages, revealing the period of existence for these poles.


Intersection Clusters on Greenland

Another item becomes clear when we look deeper into this issue: The older the cluster, the larger the area over which a dynamic group is formed. It might sound difficult, but it is easier than it seems. The older the geo pole to which certain pyramids were once oriented, the more deformations the crust had to endure. Plates were apparently deformed and thus also the accuracy of the oriented groups of related pyramids. They form a group over a larger area.

This mechanism shows itself in a larger spread of the oriented pyramid to this ancient geo pole. From this, we can approximately recalculate the amount of deformation of the tectonic plates due to the crustal shifts.

Crustal shifts enabled Greenland to migrate in several steps over the North pole. It is possible to correlate the magnitude of the steps with the temperature proxies δD or δ18O 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.

The article on the main page tells the full essence of this theory and its exciting discovery.


© 2015 – 2018 by Mario Buildreps



Proofreading and editing: J.B.



Leave a Reply

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