<HTML>Claire wrote:
>
> >>They're supposed to be very good ! I know people in their
> 70s who enjoy them. I've got too much to read myself......
>
> I enjoyed them - but then I've very immature anyway so they
> were pitched about right lol
I'm sure you're not !
> BTW I agree with RB about the Ed Krupp thing - I can't see
> what point Ed Krupp is making really - I don't think that
> it's exactly the best argument against the OCT myself :-)
> I'm interested to see what RB's reply to this thread is
> though......
Have you read what Ed Krupp <a href="[
www.ianlawton.com]; ? I had to read it couple of times myself !
He's basically saying that Bauval/Gilbert associate a <i><b>northern</b></i> shaft with a <i><b>northern</b></i> star and a <i><b>southern</b></i> shaft with a <i><b>southern</b></i> star. In that case the orientation of Giza is upside down.
He also, initially, states:
<i><b>I am not as interested in establishing what the Egyptians did or didn't do as I am in understanding and evaluating accurately the Orion mapping assertion Bauval and Gilbert originally developed in "The Orion Mystery" and that Hancock and Bauval extended in "The Message of the Sphinx".</b></i>
He's looking at the "internal consistency" of the argument and, on one of the threads on this MB, RB IIRC admitted that he was "technically" right.
Thinking it through it's clear what the implications are:
(1) If the shafts <i><b>were</b></i> targeted at stars then Giza is upside down.
(2) If Giza is the right way up then the shafts weren't targeted at stars. But the shaft - supposedly - targeting Orion's Belt is RB's primary link between Giza and Orion's Belt......
How did I do ?
John</HTML>