<HTML>Claire wrote:
>
> >>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 :-)
Well I just look on largely in ignorance.... There was a recent thread on this MB where Dave/Avry concluded IIRC that something that Bauval claimed gave 10500BC <i>actually</i> gave 8500BC..... That's a big difference in my book.... I think it was the date at which the Sphinx faced the constellation that the AEs didn't recognise as a Lion....
> >>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 was originally 10450BC....
> It is worth remembering that he doesn't
> attempt to claim that the pyramids were built then, just that
> the match works.
GH and RB spent a lot of time in Keeper of Genesis trying to <i>suggest</i> that the GIza pyramids predated the 4th Dynasty.
> 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.
That's Dave's contention IIRC.
> 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'.
AFAIK you can't get 10500BC from the software....
> 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~
How much does he pay me:-)?
> 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!
Read what Tony Fairall has to <a href="[
www.museums.org.za];. (btw there's some diagrams if you click the links) He says - and he's the Prof. ! - that the date should be 12000BC.
So the question is why does Bauval <i>stick</i> to the 10500BC date ? Dave/Avry claim that one of those should be 8500BC, Tony Fairall claims another should be 12000BC. I suppose we could have an average of 10250BC.....
From what I can see of the astronomy there's <i>nothing</i> to indicate 10500BC.....
So where does 10500BC come from ?
Your starter for ten, no conferring !
John</HTML>
