<HTML>Robert G. Bauval wrote:
>
> 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.
But you tell us that they were <i>Master Astronomers</i> ? Similarly, in order to have "modelled the Duat in 10500BC" - strange how this is all driven by Edgar Cayce - they must have been <i>Master Mathematicians</i> because not only would they have had to have worked out precessional maths but they would also have had to have worked out <i>where</i> in the precessional cycle they happened to be in c. 2500 BC - I understand that's a considerably bigger task which I'm sure one of the astronomers who frequents this MB can elaborate on......
> 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.
If that's the case why did you originally tell us that it was<i>accurate</i>,
<i>precise</i>, <i>exact</i>, etc ? I've previously provided the references to <i>your</i> book where <i>you</i> wrote that so please don't try and deny it.
Similarly, the <i>Hermetic Texts</i> require <i>exactness</i>, etc....
> 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.
And what are they rebutting ? A simple statement that Giza is upside down or Krupp's more detailed <a href="[
www.ianlawton.com]; based on the directionality from the shafts ? Note that Krupp writes:
"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."
If you have a convincing rebuttal to Krupp - send it to Ian Lawton and I'm sure he'll put it on his site. Krupp's has been there since the end of 2000....
> 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.
And again, what are they "rebutting". I've read <a href="[
www.grahamhancock.com] Mystery of the 'Upside-Down' Pyramids</a> and there is no mention of Krupp's detailed position as outlined on Ian Lawton's site.
As to "forcing" things I will not comment......
John</HTML>
