<HTML>Martin Stower wrote:
>
> 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.
As might have been gathered I'm not an astronomer but I do understand that it's not easy to know where you are in the precessional cycle. If the bottom was 10500BC then the OK AEs not only had to know that that was the bottom of the cycle for Orion's Belt but also that they were c.8000 years away from that.
> The overall picture is that the matches cited (individually
> or in combination) aren't nearly as good as Bauval makes out.
They've gone from "accurate" to "symbolic" !
> > 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.
I see it as "forced".
John</HTML>
