<HTML>Robert G. Bauval <starvlingb@aol.com> writes:
[...]
>The match is visually and esthetically perfect,
Eye of the beholder. The only assertions that I am interested in
examining are these:
"The pattern is mimicked on the ground where we see that the Pyramid of
Menkaure is offset by exactly the right amount..."
"At 10450 BC – and at that date only – we find that the pattern of the
pyramids on the ground provides a perfect reflection of the pattern of
stars in the sky. I mean it's a <i>perfect match</i>..." (Author's
emphasis)
Not only is there not a '<i>perfect</i> match', but the precision of fit
is actually <b>worse</b> for 10,450 BCE than it is for 2,500 BCE. It
seems that the author chose not to take proper motion (which, for the
alignment in question, is non-trivial over >5 millennia) into account!
> or at least as perfect as
>one would expect it to be without the aid of sophisticated optical
>instruments and spherical trigonometrical calculation.
Utter twaddle, Robert! You don't need "sophisticated optical
instruments" or "spherical trigonometrical calculation" to achieve
precisions better than half a degree -- it is trivial to do this with
nothing more complicated than two straight edges and a primitive
sighting device so that one or both edges can also be used as an alidade.
Spherical trigonometry has nothing to do with it! All that is required
is the simple transfer of a pattern.
> The 'perfection' that
>you and other critics are seeking is theoretical,
Nonsense. I can't speak for other critics, but the perfection that I am
seeking is nothing more than that claimed by the OCT proponents such as
the one I quoted above.
> and goes outside the ethos
>and context of the Pyramid Age,
Precisions of half a degree were not beyond the capabilities of the builders of the pyramids, if authorities on the subject (yourself included, IIRC) are to
be believed.
>the related ideologies and, more
>importantly, the motives behind such a correlation.
I spy a circular argument: you are offering your own theory
('motives...') as evidence for your own theory.
>Speaking of perfection, Krupp's 'upside down' argument
Red herring. I did not mention Ed Krupp's argument and it is entirely
irrelevant to the points I am making about the '<i>perfect</i> match'
being somewhat less than perfect (for increasingly large values of
'somewhat less' the further one goes back in time).
--
Best,
Stephen
[
www.aegis1.demon.co.uk<];
