<HTML>Ishmael
>>All I need to show is that a relationship exists and that the odds against its having emerged due to chance are astronomical. For that, all I need is statistical evidence producing probabilities.
I don't think you can prove this statisically - you can't prove it was deliberate in this way. Co-factors such as topography also need to be considered. I think that statisical analysis is a red herring here.
Actually I think that RB does it right. He spotted a possible relationship (his hypothesis) and then searched for evidence that the AE's would have held special significance to Orions Belt, or that they had an 'as above so below' type mentality. He decided that both were justified and therefore an actual relationship was likely. That's it. An exact duplication may lend weight to this theory, but that's all.
This doesn't affect your contention that the MTs were laid out according to some ground plan to mirror Orions Belt - I am not qualified to judge that at all - I'm just saying that in my view statisical analysis is not a subsitute for bypassing the Egyptology here. I think that it's relevant.
Claire</HTML>