<HTML>John Wall wrote:
[. . .]
> 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....
The main point in that case is that Leo isn't a point. Some part of it rose due east over several hundred years. I've checked this myself using (IIRC) Skyglobe. At 10500 BC, the vernal point is in Virgo, just short of Leo. It you want it actually in Leo, a later date works better. If on the other hand you want visible pre-dawn rising of Leo (as covered by Dave Moore), the date gets pushed back again. It's a fuzzy relationship, which doesn't pinpoint 10500 BC.
Also, contrary to Bauval's rhetoric, the angles of Orion's belt and the three pyramids relative to the meridian in 10500 BC don't match perfectly. Despite Bauval's confusing (and confused?) response to Fairall, it's pretty clear that the angles are out about 10 degrees. This is supposed to be meridian transit <i>at</i> dawn, a problem if visibility is an issue.
The other claim made is the 10500 BC marks Orion's lowest point in the precessional cycle. That wants checking, but I doubt it can be fixed that precisely.
The overall picture is that the matches cited (individually or in combination) aren't nearly as good as Bauval makes out.
> So where does 10500BC come from ?
It's certainly true that Bauval and Gilbert chose to mention Cayce in this connection. Bauval's seems inclined to run with such happy coincidences. His overall approach is very much a pattern-matching one. Whether or not the matches are forced is left as a question for the reader.</HTML>
