<HTML>The whole thing's got more holes in it than a Swiss cheese - I like cheese:-)
You've got a "representation" of Orion's belt that was described in "Orion Mystery" as:
"Not only did the layout of the pyramids match the stars with uncanny precision but the intensity of the stars, shown by their apparent size, corresponded with the Giza group..."
and in FOG as:
"…the three pyramids were an unbelievably precise terrestrial map of the three stars of Orion's belt, accurately reflecting the angles between each of them and even (by means of their respective sizes) providing some indication of their individual magnitudes. Moreover, this map extended outwards to the north and south to encompass several other structures on the Giza plateau - once again with faultless precision."
but within a few years (in the excellent Horizon programme) was described as:
"…the Ancient Egyptians were making a pleasing, symbolic resemblance to what they saw in the sky on the ground…" and "The people who built these monuments were making a grand symbolic statement that was supposed to be understood on an intuitive and spiritual level".
How you get any sort of accurate 10,500 BC from a "symbolic" representation beats me !
And even the angles are wrong as <a href="[
www.museums.org.za] Farrell</a> demonstrated - they've shifted like the sands of the Sahara.
The Sphinx indicating the "Age of Leo" at 10,500 BC is another non-starter - from the work that was presented on this MB recently you can just about squeeze 10,500BC into it and, of course, the AEs didn't recognise the constellation we know as Leo until Ptolemaic Times - that's not "speculation", "opinion" or "closed-mindedness" but an indisputable FACT which no amount of shuffling of Pyramid Texts and playing with Skyglobe can overcome.
And of course both Ed Krupp and John Legon, independently, came up with the fact that the thing is upside down ! And Ed Krupp <a href="[
www.ianlawton.com]; with this:
"Had Bauval and Gilbert ignored the shaft alignments and simply said three pyramids in a line equal three stars in a row, their argument would have been unfalsifiable and logically uninteresting. I would have left it alone. Instead, however, Bauval and Gilbert first anchored the Giza pyramids with clearly designated directional attachments to the sky. The north shaft, they agreed, was targeted on the upper culmination (meridian occupation, cardinal north) of Thuban, near the north celestial pole. The south shaft, they agreed, was targeted on the transit (meridian occupation, cardinal south) of the Belt of Orion. If you accept the stellar alignment of the shafts, and Bauval/Gilbert/Hancock do, it means the Old Kingdom Egyptians deliberately associated cardinal north on the ground at Giza with north in the sky and cardinal south on the ground at Giza with south in the sky. Of course, you can invert the directionality of the plan on the ground with respect to the sky's distinctive directionality, but doing so contradicts the original premise. Bauval et al, however, embraced that premise."
Ed Krupp has also demonstrated that the Sphinx is on the wrong side of the Nile !
And we're told that there's some "incredible coincidence" that this all "points" to this magical date of 10,500BC.
This isn't a "correlation" or "coincidence" but a farce !
John</HTML>
