<HTML>Chris Tedder wrote:
>
> Dave,
> Could you clarify your reasoning a bit more.
>
> Assuming the sun rose at about 62 degs azimuth on the summer
> solstice in 10500 BC, that’s 28 degs N of E. Then midway
> along the
> horizon between the solstice azimuth and the equinox azimuth,
> the
> sun rises about 14 degs N of E.
>
> At the equinox a few hours before the sunrise the recumbent
> Lion
> rises and due south when the sun rises the middle star in the
> ‘belt’ of Orion was about due south.
>
> The problem, is with the angle of the belt of Orion as it
> crossed
> the meridian about this time. It’s about 7 degs less steep
> than the
> angle on the ground between the first two pyramids of Giza, the
> angle depending on which of the three stars is on the meridian.
>
> This makes it unlikely that the AE were attempting to
> represent on
> the ground at Giza, the situation in the sky at this
> significant
> moment in time in the precessional cycle.
>
> It is possible that the AE astronomer/priests noticed and could
> visualize that the whole ‘vault’ of the sky seemed to be
> turning.
>
> If they were keen observers of the sky, then over a few
> generations
> of observing, the apparent ‘drift’ along the horizon of the
> rising
> and setting stars and the change in altitude over the years as
> stars crossed the meridian, could have been noticed. If they
> did
> notice this, then it must have been a little disconcerting as
> they
> would not have known the reason for this. It is remotely
> conceivable that they could picture the whole process
> in the mind and attempted to visualize what the situation in
> the
> remote past would have been, but of course it seems unlikely.
>
> Chris Tedder
Chris, this has nothing to do with Orion. I'm talking about Leo here. Frank Doernerburg has already comprehensively covered Orion.
Bauval on p. 261 of Keeper of Genesis/Message of the Sphinx (Figure 66) has the Sun rising 14 degrees south of East in 10500 BC, to the east of Regulus (Alpha Leonis). This is aligned with the angle of one of the causeways, which is also aligned 14 degrees south of East. This is one of the major planks of his "Giza complex was planned in 10500 BC" hypothesis.
However, when I went and checked this out, I got the Sun rising only 11 degrees to the south of East (and to the West of Regulus). Skychart III shows the Ecliptic moving a couple of degrees to the West in 10500 BC compared with Regulus (and Redshift 3 and Skymap Pro 7 also show it moving to the West slightly, although not as much as Skychart III because they can only go back to 4713 BC whereas Skychart III can go back beyond 10500 BC).
Skyglobe, which was the package that he used, is famous for not being very accurate. I think Bauval used this, and because of the inherent inaccuracy, jumped to the wrong conclusion and esentially added together 2+2 to get 5.
Now, being afraid that I've made a mistake, I posted the methodology that I used to the board for someone else to repeat it. The message was cryptic because a) it was late and b) I didn't want to prejudice anyone elses results.
What I now need is for (at least) several other people to repeat this test and if they get the same result as me then we can go forward.
Ideally, this would be using different software than Skychart III.
Hope this clears its up Chris.
Best Regards,
Dave</HTML>
