<HTML>Actually RB says so.
I asked you above:
>>Why not just ask Bauval about the "incident" instead of spending hours nit-picking the posts of some ill-informed simpleton like me?
Since no answer to this was forthcoming (you must have assumed it was rhetorical) I took my own advice and asked him myself.
RB says:
>>I was astounded that Krupp would try and make his point by
using a map from Johann Bayer's Uranometria, printed in 1603! This map is
'reverse' i.e. it represents the sky imagined as a huge glass bubble seen
from the 'outside'. This is not how the constellations are naturally seen
from earth, as any schoolboy can verify by simply going out at night and
looking at Orion. But instead of showing a photo of Orion (which Krupp
certainly has many!) or a virtual reality printout from a modern computer
programme --both of which would have shown Orion as seen from earth, and
thus confirmed my argument-- Krupp pulled this little red herring, as he did
on BBC Horizon. [...] I thought my sarcasm was obvious.
I of course have a copy of Krupp's article. Here's the caption under Johann
Bayer's etching of Orion (shown as a giant-hunter seen from the back (!)
holding the mace with his right hand and shield with his left):
"There are three stars in the belt of Orion, and there are three pyramids at
Giza. To make them match, as The Orion Mystery assures us they do, you have
to turn Egypt upside down. From the The Stars in Song and Legend by Jermain
G. Porter, after Johann Bayer's Uranometria."
If one is to reason Krupp out, the ancient had astrolabe vision i.e. they
'saw' the stars from 'outside' the celestial sphere, and thus should have
represented these on the ground by imagining that they were projected from
directly above (or folded 'down') --- or, if prefer, as 'seen' from
underground through a transparent earth! Now if that's not a red herring (not
to say a confusion) that warranted a little sarcasm from me, I don't know
what does.
*********************************************
So, in answer to your original post:
>>Is it too much to ask that Bauval notices things like this, or should we speculate that he has made Maier's Law a philosophy of life?
He did notice, therefore your speculation is unnecessary.
Can this be laid to rest now?
Bryan.</HTML>
