<HTML>Hi Ishmael,
I don't disagree too greatly with what you say here. Roberts inspiration in noticing a similarity between the positions of 3 pyramids with 3 stars has done much to raise public interest in AE and whatever anyone can say about the theory itself he has done exceptionally well to spin that simple notion into several journal articles, best selling books and tv programs. I don't mean to sound cynical as I recognise that it takes a considerable amount of hard work to do this. It must also be demanding to continually receive criticism of the correlation theory and have to fend off critics time after time to save it from capitulation. I do find it strange though that Robert spends more time answering the same old questions in the same derogative manner and moaning apout doing so but fails answer many other relevant, pertinent and interesting questions on his theory.
The real concern for me is why so many people actually care about something thats so err.... nothing? Now I could be jealous of him for getting rich and famous on the basis of such a simple idea but its not an ambition of mine to be either of those things. As far as I'm concerned its just not the major contribution towards the study of Egypt that some people seem to believe it is.
The interest in the correlation theory is not due to the interest in pyramids representing stars (although I'm sure some are fascinated by that idea). The real interest from the public comes from linking the pyramids at Giza with a far earlier date in pre-history. Robert has managed to link these pyramids to 10,500 BC which he suggests was their "first time". Apparently this is no longer because of a fixed lock with the angle of the pyramids and the angle of the stars as fixed by precession but is now because that was the lowest point in the precessional cycle (and absolutely nothing to do with Mr Cayce).
For some reason (which nobody has yet speculated upon) the AEs wished to commemorate this date but none of the alternative crew know why it was so special for them. There is, however, no evidence that the AEs were aware of precession or that they could calculate its effects. Even if they had realised the effects of precession its unlikely they knew it was a cyclical event or even where in that cycle they were. So we're left to wonder why the AEs were modelling the sky in 10,500 BC and not at the time they actually built them.
Still somehow we got 10,500 BC and the hint of an older Egyptian culture which has no factual basis from the archaeological record but thats not Roberts or Grahams problem is it? Thus their readers have been convinced on some rather flimsy evidence that there was a lost civilisation and we should be investing time and money to search for the remnants of it. The problem is that Robert has speculated on top of so many assumptions that the whole idea topples as soon as just one of those assumptions is exposed.
Were the AEs aware of precession? I'm sure Robert must have some convincing evidence for it but my bet is we'll just get another demand to re-read his books more carefully next time.
As for your own studies - take a tip and get 10,500 BC in there and the world will be all yours. :-)
Cheers,
Duncan</HTML>