<HTML>barry wrote:
> Interesting analysis and convincing to a layman -- but
> you seem to be calling Mr. Bauval either a fraud, a fool or
> both.
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment......
> Isn't there some middle ground?
The thing's either "accurate"/"precise" or "symbolic". If it's intended as "symbolic" why was it originally "spun" as being "symbolic".
Why were other pyramids originally included and then "withdrawn" ? Considering that they're so far away from the required positions that they couldn't possibly be included you have to ask if that was checked ?
And how you get any sort of an "accurate" 10500BC from a "symbolic" representation beats me ! The angles for that are a long way out. Read <a href="[
www.museums.org.za] Fairall</a>. You'll also see from Tony Fairall's piece how Hancock and Bauval chop and change the way the angles are defined or whether the thing is "mirrored" or "swung down".
The whole thing continually shifts like the sands of the Sahara in a desperate attempt to retain not so much the basic "correlation" but the Edgar Cayce-inspired 10500BC.
This isn't "scholarship" but "farce" !
John</HTML>
