<HTML>I have realised that <i>some</i> of the responses to my posts on a statement in Bauval's response to Krupp's criticism seemed to assume that I supported Krupp's general contention around upsidedown-ness'[1].
I would like to state for the record that I think that Bauval's response to the thrust of Krupp's criticism of 'upsidedown-ness' is reasonable [2]. I suggest that there are consistent analogues elsewhere, e.g. the correspondence of the Long Man of Wilmington with Orion, or the Uffington White Horse with Taurus, as described in John North's <i>Stonehenge</i> (1996, New York, Free Press, ISBN 0684845121) [3]. In both these cases the ground figure is 'upside down' with respect to the sky.
[1] This has only just dawned on me because <b>I made no mention of it</b> and was making an <b>entirely distinct point</b>; yet for some reason it recurred in the responses to my post.
[2] ... although there are other flaws in his hypothesis of the correspondence of three of the pyramids with the 'belt stars' of Orion (of which I assume most here are aware).
[3] I believe that North's approach to reinterpreting ancient sites displays an intellectual rigour and internal logical consistency to which 'some other authors' could attempt to emulate to their benefit.</HTML>
