I think I have already made my position quite clear regarding my opinion of the 2 sets of Queens in previous threads, however, a correction is required here.

Ronald: Supporters of the OCT claim that these sattelite-pyramids were 'precessional markers'.

SC: The OCT as proposed by Robert Bauval DOES NOT nor ever has advocated the 2 sets of Queens as Precessional Markers for Orion's Belt. It is the 'Greater Orion COrrelation Theory (GOCT)' as presented by myself that makes this proposition - so, please, let us be clear on the difference. I say this for clarity but also out of respect for Robert Bauval who I would not wish to be wrongly associated with something he did not propose and of which I do not - as yet - even know if he agrees with. The GOCT also regards the 'missing Queens' of Khafre as a key indicator of the validity of the theory.

And, for the record, I have absolutely no problem accepting that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty built these structures at Giza and perhaps utilised them for religious/funerary purposes for their various Queens (wives, moms etc) - IOW, in precisely the manner that Ronald has outlined in his post.

However, what I also see in the arrangement of these structures (in addition to a simple funerary complex), is a clear and unequivocal astronomical/mathematical codex that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty themselves seem not to have been aware of. On the basis of this I propose that the 'base design' must have come down to the AEs of the 4th Dyansty from some other source.

Regards,

Scott Creighton