<HTML>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.
------------------
I can't speak for the "chattering masses" but for me, I am excited simply by the wonder of a brilliant idea. There's just something so inpiring and and admirable in a *flash of insight moment* - the kind of thing that afterward you wonder why we missed it before.
Even if Robert is ultimately proven wrong (which I do not believe will occur - in fact, quite the opposite) nothing will ever detract from the brilliance of his original observation. Even a wrong idea can still be a great idea.
-------------------
As for your own studies - take a tip and get 10,500 BC in there and the world will be all yours. :-)
--------------------
My goal is to seperate the OCT into it's constituent parts. I think most who reject the OCT do so because they cannot accept Bauval's more "grandiose" claims. Unfortunately, they throw the entire thing away just to get rid of its less paletable elements.
I also think there's alltogether too much "personality" in the debate - when it ought to really be about getting at the "truth" (not how much money someone has made).
I think each claim of the OCT should be evaluated in isolation with a truly critical eye - which is not the same as evaluating the claim with the aim of defeating it. Alternative methods than those used by Bauval can be brought to bear on many of the questions he raises.
1. Is there a congruity between the layout of the Giza pyramids and the belt stars of Orion?
2. Do the pyramids "represent" particular stars in the constelation?
3. Why are the pyramids arranged at 45 degrees off north?
I am convinced that the answer to the first question is "yes," - and I will be presenting definitive proof of this at a latter date. I think that Bauvals' evidence from the Pyramid shafts and the pyramid texts (combined with the statistical evidence I will soon present) make a strong case for an affirmative answer to question two as well.
The third question remains open.
Robert has suggested that the reason the pyramids are arranged at 45 degrees off north is that the Egyptians were modeling the "first time" of Osirus. I don't think this to be a ludicous proposition! I actually think there is good reason to think it quite possible.
However, it isn't the only answer available. R. Avry Wilson has an alternative explaination and there may be others.
It is important that we not see Robert's suggested explanation for the angular offset from north as being integral to the logic of the OCT. His is but one explanation for a phenomena that becomes apparent only after we have accepted the paralel between the pyramids and the belt stars.
I think it is therefore most important that discussion of the OCT remain focused upon the first two questions only. I hope to make a major contribution to that discussion shortly.
Duncan, I wish to add that I thank you for keeping an open mind regarding this issue.
ISHMAEL</HTML>