creigs1707 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> SC: But then if the pyramids ARE modelled on
> Orion, then the GOCT strengthens the OCT.

First a kudo for posting information contra to your own idea. It would appear that the pyramids aren't in Little's opinion. Or are you cherry picking out of Little's writing that which supports your idea and ignoring that which doesn't?
>
> Presently, I cannot see why the ancients should
> indicate two correlations in the one groundplan as
> Dr Greg Little seems to be advocating.

Because six little pyramids stuck out in the desert could mean anything or nothing and as we discussed before - the two sets of three don't look like Orion-so how would you know that they represented them? Without an accurate representation of Orion the idea sinks faster than the Vasa. [not even taking into account that no Egyptian would be looking at the pyramids from a skywards view]

More
> important is that the design itself is able to
> tell us categorically and unequivocally which
> stars the Great Pyramids are correlated with.

Unfortunately it doesn't do that, despite your somewhat overstated opinion, LOL


> Thus by demonstrating the precessional motion of
> the 'chosen group of stars' through the relative
> placement of the 2 sets of 'Queens', we can easily
> determine from the design itself which stars are
> being indicated - Orion's Belt, for no other triad
> of stars can mimic this indicated precessional
> motion.

You've got lots of maybes and leaps in there Scott, again the Queens by themselves are meaningless and as Little says the pyramids do not reflect Orion in the sky

How did the LC know that some future nation would know that by the way?

As I have said many times before - this
> is an anticryptographic codex built around the
> Orion stars.

Yes but saying it doesn't make it true

> This is why I named my theory the Greater Orion
> COrrelation Theory (GOCT) because I believe it
> builds upon and strengthens Robert Bauval's OCT.

But Bauval's Orion idea is not accepted as accurate-something Little goes to great pains to point out in his article.

> Yes, the remote date is a problem but as I have
> also said in previous posts, the date posited for
> astronomical knowledge is being pushed back
> further and further in time.

irrelevant to your idea being right or wrong

I think it currently
> stands at around c. 7000 BP, as the evidence at
> Nabta Playa seems to show.

Brophy's theory proposes first that three of the center stones match the belt of Orion at it's minimum tilt and the other three match the shoulder and head stars of Orion at their maximum tilt. This cycle repeats approximately every 25,000 years. The last minimum of Orion's belt occurred between 6400 BC and 4900 BC, matching the radio-carbon dating of campfires around the circle. Orion appears in the sky, looking south from the north-south meridian, right before the summer solstice sunrise. The last maximum of Orion's shoulder stars occurred around 16500 BC

Brophy's idea supports yours??

I fully expect in the
> years ahead that this date will be pushed back
> further still into remote antiquity.

Yes one would hope it does but that doesn't make your idea any more real
>