<HTML>John
>>So where does 10500BC come from ?
You could read
Fingerprints of the Gods
The Orion Mystery
Keeper of Genesis
For an explanation of where the date comes from ~lol~
>>How much does he pay me:-)?
You pay him I'm afraid :-)
The thing is I don't think you understood my question. You are claiming (or rather have claimed and not retracted) that the 10500 BC date is Cayce inspired. You are now justifying an opinion that 10500 BC is not the date that the Orion Correlation produces.
Whether or not the Orion correlation produces an exact match at 10500 BC or not isn't the point here. Was it RB's intention to find an exact match for the orion correlation? Is it reasonable for RB to have got 10500BC at the time of writing his works - or is it an untenable position? Or - your contention - did RB get his date from Cayce and not ever from the orion match?
Basically the point here is that RB used the orion correlation to reach his date, a point I think that you concede tacitly. :-)
BTW I got a different impression to you from Dave Moore, although I'm happy to admit that I may have misunderstood the thread 'Re: Dating the Giza Complex to 10500 BC...did Mr Bauval add 2+2 and get 5?'
If your position is that you don't understand the astronomy yourself, but are impressed by the fact that others have derived different dates for an exact orion correlation at different dates - then that's reasonable.
However John, this is a DIFFERENT position from the one you in fact hold, that the date only ever came from Edgar Cayce - was INSPIRED by Cayce - and therefore NOT derived from the orion correlation. You still have provided no evidence that this may have been the case. RB has provided evidence that he reached his date by a different route, that it was orion correlation inspired.
Am I making any sense btw? ~lol~
Claire</HTML>
