Joanne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thadd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

> The PT were written after the Gizamids were built.
> Some of the texts may be older than the date at
> which they are fist attested, but if that is the
> case, it argues in favor of linking those texts
> with the earlier funeral projects.

But there is no basis on which to make this assumption.
>
> Have you ever read the OCT? One of Bauval's
> points is that the Gizamids resemble the Belt
> stars in their arrangement; neither the Gizamids
> nor the stars are simply "in a row."

Scott basis it on the other pyramids which are in a row, which was where the origional response here was pulled.

Additionally, whatever Bauval says, the pyramids do not match, in angle or dirrection the stars in the orion belt.
>
> There is no reason not to assume one either, and
> there is nothing wrong with exploring possible
> reasons.
No, there is nothing wrong with it, but it should be done from the basis of support, not just picking some possible reason that has no support.

> Actually that date has nothing to do with the
> original OCT -- I'm not sure what you mean by the
> "general" OCT. Before you decide anything is
> nonsense, you ought to be certain you understand
> what is being proposed.
from wiki on Bauval

Quote

In particular, the aspects of the OCT which claim there is a link between the Ancient Egyptian structures at Giza and the constellations as they looked some 12500 years ago are yet to find any support from within the field.

See also , Archaeological Fantasies

So yes, this is part of the theory.