<HTML>Avry,
You argue that both Spence's and R&Ps theories can be discounted on the basis of their selection of pyramids to fit their predetermined hypotheses. But if this is so can we not also dismiss the Orion correlation theory on this basis?
Bauval has imprecisely aligned 3 pyramids with 3 stars. Not only is the data imprecise but he has selected 3 pyramids from a total of 100+ Egyptian pyramids none of which can be said to mirror stars. If Bauval is right and pyramids represented stars why did the AEs make no mention of that in the PTs or indeed anywhere? In fact why aren't all AE pyramids associated with particular stars?
If the correlation was intentional why did Djedfre build his pyramid elsewhere? Surely the correlation could have been finished much sooner if he had? In any case 3 stars do not make a constellation and we have to agree with Bauvals distorted interpretation of the PTs that S3h= constellation of Orion. Did the IVth dynasty AEs regard Osiris as the constellation of Orion and not just a single star. If so why would Isis be Sirius and Osiris be an entire constellation? Why did 3 IVth dynasty pharoahs decide to represent their pyramids as stars but noone else?
Sounds like selection of data to fit a predetermined hypothesis to me.
I also understand that Nature received hundreds of letters in response to Spence's article and all of those they considered as serious contributions received a reply. That you did not receive a reply would suggest they do not take your criticism at all seriously which would seem strange considering how highly regarded Nature is within the scientific community.
Personally I'm in complete agreement with R&P - there is little point in commenting on your criticisms before they are published. If that ever happens I'm sure you'll let us know.
KRs,
Duncan</HTML>
