<HTML>~lol~
My last try :-)
As far as I see it, there are two sorts of correlations
There is one where the relationship between x and y is direct and causal ie x causes y - eg in chemistry the greater concentration of x the greater density of y for example
There are also correlations where you get apparent relationships between two things but there is no causal relationship between the two, eg the rate of TV ownership and premature death from heart disease. In this case the real relationship may lie in income and lifestyle - higher income, more sedentary job, low exercise rates, more TVs and so on. In reality heart disease is caused by a range of things, diet, stress levels, exercise, genetics etc. Not many would leap to the judgment that heart disase is caused by TV ownership - I don't think that a correlation would prove that - it would be a red herring. But it might be an indirect correlation.
There are also correlations that are complete coincidence. Ones where there is in fact no relationship between the factors. eg a rock that looks like a camel. You may appear to see a relationship between the shape of a rock and a camel (a real life example of a tedious tour I took in the Sinai ~lol~) but there is no relationship between the two - rock shapes are uninfluenced by camels and vice versa.
So I think that Ishmael is incorrect when he states that the only way to prove his correlation is through statisical analysis. He would need to demonstrate a direct intent on the part of the AE to mirror Orion's Belt. There is no statisical way of overcoming this need - in my mind anyway. Now I think that RB does demostrate a relationship between Orion and Osiris - others disagree. (eg John Legon) This would be the meat of the debate I think. Did the AE's attempt to mirror Orions's Belt, with either the pyramids or the MTs. That's just my view.
Claire</HTML>