<HTML>> A shaft pointed south can *only* align with a star in the
> south (obviously!). A shaft pointed north can *only* align
> with a star in the north (if they align with stars at all of
> course).
Precisely. If they are star shafts then if the AEs were representing Orion's belt they could have made an unambiguous map and not a mirror image. It's a problem for the OCT and no amount of denigrating Krupp or his opinion can deny that.
-------------------------
Duncan...you don't seem to realize that a "mirror image" is exactly what Krupp is advocating as the proper layout. Please read what he writes a second time. What exists on the ground at Giza (if it is Orion's Belt) is *not* a mirror image - it is a reproduction and that is precisely what Krupp argues is inacurate and incorrect about it.
(Krupp has even criticized Graham Hancock for using the term "Heaven's Mirror" by, quite correctly, pointing out that what exists at Giza is *not* a mirror image! Krupp is the one advocating that an accurate representation of Orion would by ndefinition be a "mirror image")
Imagine standing outside of the cosmic sphere and looking down on the constellations aranged around the earth. You would see the back-side of Orion from this perspective and the Giza plateu below it. The current pattern, from this vantage, forms an "X." Krupp argues that it should form a "/". Now, if there was a mirror on the sands of Egypt, so that the belt stars reflected back to our eyes, what pattern would we see? An "X?"
No. We would see a single line "/". *This* is a mirror image. Krupp advocates a mirror image as the proper way to represent Orion.
The pattern that actually exists at Giza is what Orion's Belt would look like were it to rotate toward the horizon and then slide across the sand. It is also what Orion would look like if we could view it through a transparent earth as it orbits on the opposite side of the planet. It is (again, assuming that it is Orion's belt) a perfect translation of the actual star pattern.
It is not - not - not - I repeat - not - a "mirror image." This is very important to understand. What Krupp advocates *is* a mirror image.
Do you follow?
-----------------------
There are many
> logical objections to the OCT.
If you realise that why are you still clinging onto it?
---------------------
Because despite the many logical, reasonable and rational objections that have been levied against the theory, I have now determined conclusively that it is true. :-) Bauval was right in at least this much: the pattern on the ground is an *exact* (and I do mean exact) reproduction of the pattern formed by the stars of Orion's Belt.
----------------------
there is enough wrong with the OCT to realise that the only correlation here is in the mind of its originator and not in the minds of the AEs.
-----------------------
I am sincerely disapointed. I thought you were keeping an open mind. I do hope that you will.
ISHMAEL</HTML>