<HTML>Robert G. Bauval wrote:
>
> Dear John Wall,
Dear ?
<i>Moi ?</i>
<i>Au contraire !, Au contraire !</i>
I provide <i>extremely</i> good value for money:-) and I'm not charging for this at all !
> You state: "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."
>
> The problem with you, John, is that you have failed to
> understand the dating method presented in Keeper of Genesis.
Who's talking about <i>Keeper of Genesis</i> ? Let's look at the whole <i>corpus</i> - and this nonesense started with <i>Orion Mystery</i>.
> It is NOT derived by the angle of the Belt stars of Orion;
> this angle is NOT used to define the date of c. 10500 BC. The
> date is derived by the fact that these stars reach their
> lowest culmination (or 'first time') in the precessional
> cycle in c. 10500 BC.
Strange, that's not what my copy of <i>Orion Mystery</i> says....
It's in Chapter 10/IV:
<i><b>But what now emerges from the visual picture of the southern sky at the epoch c. 10400BC is this:
The pattern of Orion's Belt seen on the 'west' of the Milky Way matches, with uncanny precision, the pattern and alignment of the three Giza pyramids!
In c. 2450BC, when the Great Pyramid was built, the correlation was experienced when Orion's Belt was seen in the east at the moment of heliacal rising of Sirius, the perfect 'meridian to meridian' patterns, i.e., when the two images superimpose in perfect match; this is when we see the First Time of Orion's Belt in c. 10450BC.</b></i>
Do I see the terms <i><b>uncanny precision</b></i> and <i><b>perfect match</b></i> or am I just imagining something different due to an overindulgence on the room temperature good stuff ?
Why is there such a major change from <i><b>uncanny precision</b></i> and <i><b>perfect match</b></i> which must indicate that the angles and spacing of the pyramids are important, to a total disregard of the features of Giza and its replacement with <i><b>just</b></i> the astronomy ?
Wasn't all this checked before publication ? To be able to claim <i><b>uncanny precision</b></i> and <i><b>perfect match</b></i> implies some checking......
> This also occurs precisely (well, a
> minute or so away) when the vernal point is due east on the
> horizon, and directly underneath the constellation of Leo,
<i><b>Directly under</b></i> ? If I understood the astronomical arguments recently presented by Dave Moore on this MB it's somewhat <i><b>marginal</b></i> wrt Leo - which, of course, as is also well established wasn't recognised as a constellation by the Egyptians until Ptolemaic times; the New Kingdom ceilings and First Intermediate Period coffins, etc far outweigh any special pleading based on cherrypicking from the Pyramid Texts.
> thus locking the Sphinx into the same dating scheme. This is
> very precise (although it is true that the date should be
> kept within 10680 BC and 10450 BC, depending on which
> astronomical programme you use; Long hand calculation using
> the rigorous precession formula gives c. 10450 BC, but some
> computer programmes such as Night Sky Pro gives c. 10680
> BC). And no, the 10500 BC date is not Cayce-inspired. It was
> arrived through astronomical and textual reasoning.
Considering how dodgy the astronomy is - your "age of Leo" is, IIRC, thousands of years out and the less said about your 10500BC from Orion's Belt the better, it's impossible to see where the 10500BC comes from other than Edgar Cayce !
> I've said this many times before.
Say something often enough and loud enough and people will believe it's true ? It's didn't work then and it won't work now as there's always irritating folks around who'll point out that the Emperor is stark naked !
> And John, it far better to have a flexible mentality than a
> wall for a brain (excuse the unintentional pun).
<i>Flexible mentality</i> ? I take it that's like an <a href="[
thehallofmaat.com] Mind</a> ? Thanks, but no thanks !
Am I expected to continue to <i>believe</i> - and it's well established that <i>alternative history</i> is largely a <i>belief</i> system - when something is described 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; there were three stars, three pyramids, three Osiris-Orion kings." - <i><b>Orion Mystery</b></i>
and:
"…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."- <i><b>FOG</b></i>
but then becomes:
"…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". <i><b>Horizon</b></i>
but is "buttressed" by Hermetic Texts:
"Similarly, in the Book of What is in the Duat we learn that the essential requirement for those seeking the life eternal was that they should build on the ground perfect copies 'of the hidden circle of the Duat in the body of Nut [the sky]':
Whosever shall make an exact copy of these forms, and shall know it, shall be a spirit
well-equipped both in heaven and in earth, unfailingly, and regularly and eternally." - <i><b>Heaven's Mirror</b></i>
Do I see the words <i><b>perfect</b></i> and <i><b>exact</b></i> or is it getting late ?
John</HTML>
