<HTML>Stephen Tonkin wrote:
>
> 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
A translation of that TLA would be appreciated here please ?
> 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]
Don't forget the TV series and tours !
> 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.
The point I've repeatedly made; the "aim" sees to be to undertake some sort of mathematical "analysis" - on what part of the Mortuary Temple I don't know; presumably whatever gives the right "answer" ! - and then shout "Eureka" whatever answer is obtained !
> 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.
Now where have I seen that before ?
> 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.
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment !
> 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.)
It hasn't been made - period !
John</HTML>
