<HTML>John
>>but as I understand it at least part of Bauval's astronomy is several thousand years out
I'm afraid I'm a few steps behind you here - could you elaborate? Several thousand years? I must have missed the relevant discussion - to be honest I find some of this astronomy hard to follow :-)
>>wrt Cayce the question is very simple. If that isn't driving the dating then all Bauval has to do is accept a different date rather than continually shifting his position to keep 10500BC
I don't follow your logic though. RB has presented a case for a 10500BC date - that is, he presents a case for the Orion/Osiris link, and then for the 3 Giza pyramids to be an expression of Orions belt (notwithstanding the shifting accuracy). His position is that when he looked for an exact match between the pyramids and the stars, the software he used, Skyglobe, came up with the date 10500BC. So he announced that. It is worth remembering that he doesn't attempt to claim that the pyramids were built then, just that the match works. If you are claiming that the Skyglobe programme was inaccurate, and may have given him a false date, then fair enough - lets see how he reacts. However you are (and have been at least since February) accusing RB of dishonesty. You are suggesting (in another thread) that the 10500BC date is not derived from an exact match using astronomy software but is 'cayce inspired'. This means that Cayce was the inspiration for the date and NOT the orion correlation. When I asked you for evidence you replied that GH's essay A view from the Trenches was evidence of dishonesty. First I would say that it does not account for RB's methodology, second I don't think it proves dishonesty. Your test, as you've told me before, is: would this stand up in court? I think on this evidence you're looking at an out of court settlement ~lol~
So my problem is this - the burden is not for RB to prove to you that his date wasn't Cayce inspired :-) I was asking you to justify that accusation to me!
Do you see what I mean?
Cheers John
Claire</HTML>
