Joanne Wrote:
Quote:> 1) While parts of the PTs are older
> > linguistically, they cannot be contextually
> linked
> > in this case
>
> If you accept that the PT are older than their
> attested date, that argues in favor of linking
> them with earlier funerary projects. The basis is
> that they are fun erary texts found in pyramids.

But we cannot say how much earlier, or which specifically. There is no actual comparable context.
We cannot have a substantiated date or period or even what parts of Egypt they would be attributable to.
> > Scott basis it on the other pyramids which
> are in
> > a row, which was where the origional response
> here
> > was pulled.
>
> I have no idea what you mean here.
The quote about three things in a row was based on Scott's premise of the two sets of ""queen's pyramids", which are in strait rows, unlike the three great pyramids and unlike Orion

> That's simply not true. The arrangement of the
> pyramids does match the arrangement of the Belt
> stars. Whether that's intentional or coincidental
> is another issue. But the resemblence is there.

If you look at the three pyramids and the three stars, they resemble, but do not match up. Putting them in scale places the stars and pyramids in a disjointed set up, where the stars do not match with the actual peaks of the pyramids.

Also, they are upside down.
>
> I asked you earlier if you had actually read the
> OCT, which does not depend on such an early date.
> You did not answer. I assume you haven't. If you
> are going to rely on second hand accounts from
> questionable sources such as Wikipedia, you're
> going to be misled.
>
I have read Hancock on it and Bauval on it, but not in his books.
From Hancock's site

Quote

The complaint upheld by the BSC specifically concerned Horizon's unfair representation of the Giza-Orion Correlation Theory, a linchpin of the wider theories of Hancock and Bauval regarding the possibility of a forgotten chapter in the history of human civilisation. The Giza-Orion Correlation Theory, which links the layout of the famous three Pyramids of Giza with the three stars of Orion's belt, was originated by Bauval and built upon by Hancock. Similarly, the Nile is said to represent the Milky Way, and the Sphinx is associated with the constellation of Leo. The major implication of the Correlation Theory is that the ancient Egyptians deliberately designed the Giza monuments to create on the ground a symbolic simulacrum of the night sky, focusing on the constellations of Orion and Leo as they appeared in 10,500BC.

Bauval and Hancock have both used the date of 10,500 BCE as the best one to align the pyramids with.

I would also add this quote from Scott:

Quote

Let's not confuse issues here - Robert Bauval HAS NEVER AT ANY TIME proposed that the 2 sets of 'Queens Pyramids' depict the precessional motion of the Orion Belt stars (i.e. the 3 Great Pyramids). Not anywhere. Not EVER. I hope we are clear on this. He proposed ONLY that the three Queens of Menkaure mimic the setting of Orion's Belt on the SW horizon around 10,500BC. He never ever made the connection between the 2 sets of 'Queens' in the way I have presented in the GOCT.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2007 07:36PM by Thadd.