<HTML>Greg Reeder wrote:
>
> All that is no doubt true. We should remember though
> that the ancients were just using their vision to look at the
> sky so in this I agree with Bauval that really fine accracy
> probably is not that important.
IMNSHO Bauval needs to learn the meaning of the word "<i>consistency</i>", and perhaps even consider practising it. He is quite happy to cite accuracy when it suits his purpose. However, reduce the required accuracy of fit enough and you'll find Bauval's OCT being challenged by Tonkin's CCT in which I concoct a load of spurious gumph to support my claim that epsilon, gamma and delta Cygni are a sufficiently close match to the relevant pyramids, and then make my pile by flogging books on it. [vbg]
The point of that last little flight of fancy is to point out that the usual way of doing a statistical analysis is to state the required correlation that will support the hypothesis <b>before</b> doing the analysis. I may well be reading things incorrectly, but it seems that the <i>modus operandi</i> here is to make a bold hypothesis then gradually weaken it by tweaking it until it force-fits the data. In this case the outcome is what appears, at least to the eyes of this admittedly inexperienced observer, an unseemly scrabble to find <b>something, anything</b>, in the Giza Plateu that will relate the pyramids to the belt stars of Orion.
If my reasoning above is wrong, please show me where. (FWIW my opinion, relatively uninformed as it is, is that there may be a relationship between the belt stars and the pyramids. However, my opinion as one who is quite capable of seeing where evidence is lacking is that the case for that relationship has not been satisfactorily made.)
S</HTML>
