<HTML>Dear John,
Again, you misunderstand the problem. The match between Orion's belt and the Giza pyramids in 10,500 BC is visually and esthetically perfect, or at least as perfect as one would expect it to be without the aid of sophisticated optical instruments and spherical trigonometrical calculation. The 'perfection' that you and other critics are seeking is theoretical, and goes outside the ethos and context of the Pyramid Age, the related ideologies and, more importantly, the motives behind such a correlation.
In any case, I do not say that the date of 10,500 BC was arrived through the calculations of angles of the belt stars. This date is arrived by finding the 'nadir' or lowest point of Orion's belt at culmination in the current precessional cycle. Read The Orion Mystery (chapter 10) again, and more carefully this time:
"The Table (see TOM p. 192 hb. ed.) shows the changes in declination and altitude at the meridian transit of Al Nitak over 13,000 years. Looking from Heliopolis, the lowest point marking the start date of that cycle is 10,400 BC, when Al Nitak has a declination of -48 degrees 53 minutes and it was 11 degrees 08 minutes over the southern horizon at its meridian transit... what now emerges from this visual picture of the southern sky 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.."
THE ORION MYSTERY, p. 192, hardback ed.
So understand my argument (if you can remove you blinkers) and do stop attributing to me an argument that I did not make, as well as the so-called 'Cayce-inspired' accusations.
You've lost this argument and you know it --or you ought to know it. Otherwise you are simply too blinkered to understand it. Period.
Best
RB</HTML>
