<HTML>The argument centres around whether the AEs associated north on the ground with the position of the northern circumpolar stars. If the northern star shaft focuses on the circumpolar stars and the southern shaft on the stars in Orion's belt then doesn't it make sense to consider the northern face of the GP (where the shaft points) to be considered as up?
-----------
This is the essence of the logical falacy.
Krupp argues that if a northern shaft points to a northern star, it means that north on the ground is associated in the minds of the egyptians with "north" in the sky.
But the problem here is that a northern shaft cannot be pointed south - under any circumstances.
If in some strange topsy turvy world (tounge in cheek) the Ancient Egyptians associated north on the ground with "up" in the sky, how might they go about pointing a northern shaft toward a southern star?
They couldn't. It is an impossibility to do so.
Now I agree that *if* it were possible to somehow bend time and space and point a northern shaft toward the south, then Krupp's argument would make sense. But in our universe, it is impossible to fold a pyramid in on itself. Therefore, the north face of a pyramid will always look toward the stars that are sitting in the north and the south face, always look toward the stars that are sitting in the south.
Because of this, we cannot infer from the direction of the shafts any association in the mind of the Egyptians between the earthly north and the stellar "up." No matter how they arrayed the pyramids, either as the accurate model they are, or as the mirror image Krupp insists is more appropriate, the shafts would by necessity need to point in the same direction in which they currently do - that is, if they were aimed at stars.
As the shafts are fixed variables, the direction in which they point cannot be used to determine the appropriatness of the ground layout.
---------
You don't understand this because you don't want to accept that Krupp has a valid point.
----------
I understand it perfectly. How can you read what I have written above and conclude that somehow I don't understand what he is saying? It is obvious that I do. Disagree if you will, but do no insist that I lack understanding of his argument. I merely conclude that it is utterly devoid of merit. You may conclude otherwise (though I question how such is possible).
----------
> The angle and distance errors for Menkeare's pyramid
> placement (this argument has now been countered by my
> investigations)
How has it been countered? Last time I looked the discrepancy was much greater than being marginal and corrected by realignment to points that happen to fit a bit better.
-----------
That's because you are looking in the wrong place. :-)
I will make my paper available shortly in which the corrected alignment is outlined. The angular discrepancy (if the survey data is accurate) is within one quarter of one arc second.
-------------
> I think my most basic goal is to end the atmosphere of
> contempt that clouds investigation of this matter.
I wonder where that cloud originated though?
--------------
Certainly not with me.
ISHMAEL</HTML>
