<HTML>Hi Derek,
I'm off to Heathrow soon, so I'm afraid I have to be quick and short.
You wrote:
Sorry, but I dont think self referancing your own theory actually answers the question.
RB: Why not? I originated the theory.
A quick skim of the chapter in question reveals that your belief on this matter rests upon the far from firm foundations of your own intepretation of The Pyramid Texts coupled to an enthusiasm for playing around with Skyglobe software.
RB: Don't just quick skim. Read carefully. But yes, it's my own interpretation of the PT and no, I don't 'play around' with Skyglobe software.
See John Wall's post in this thread.
RB: Since a long time now I make it a point to ignore John Wall's messages on MBs.
Sorry. I'm asking why an AE recognition of Leo is of any relevance to a theory about a sky-ground 'lock' involving a monument. ...
RB: ???
which you believe was built thousands of years before the AE's even existed.
RB: No I don't. I never said that. I beleive they existed when the Sphinx was built.
It stands to reason that those building the Sphinx must have recognised Leo otherwise the whole thing is just a huge coincidence.
RB: I don't believe in these kind of coincidences. You know the old axiom: if it quacks like one, walks like one, looks like one...? Actually why don't you try and prove it IS a coincidence for a change? I'm a little tired of repeating my arguments over and over again.
Ah, I understand your prevarication on this issue a little more clearly now!
RB: Ah, I have to look up that word again. But I fear your clarity is blurred in this matter.
Keep well. Got to rush.
RB</HTML>
