<HTML>Hi.
The match 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.
Speaking of perfection, Krupp's 'upside down' argument is anything but perfect. In any case it does not relate to the 'precision' issue that you are referring to, which is, presumably, to do with the arc-minute deviation variance of the star Mintaka in connection to the third pyramid and, also presumably, the angular variation of the belt in 10,500 BC. The simple truth here is that if Krupp's argument was unquestionably 'right', then surely no self-respecting astronomer or astrophycisist would have wanted to rebutt it. The fact that many have rebutted it openly is a clear indication that he's wrong --perhaps not so much in the 'technicality' of his argument, but in his erroneous attempt to force into a context that it simply does fit into.
Keep well.
RB</HTML>
