I for one am fascinated by this little spat.

Here we have RB with his OCT, and SC with his GOCT, which builds on and develops the whole Orion correlation concept into a much vaster proposition in terms of timescale and meaning, arguing like two dogs over a non-existent bone.

Theories can prop themselves up like a house of cards indefinitely when they are based on a false premise. This is what I tried to convey to Scott when I first saw his presentation – but he would not listen because he was so caught up in the wonderful complexity of where his theory went after that point. But the false premise is the key, and it’s evident right here – there simply isn’t the sufficient evidence over the relevant period of Egyptian history to make any safe correlation with Orion. It’s all down to seeing what you want to see in the layout of the three Giza pyramids, and very little else beyond that.

The argument between RB and SC is indicative more than anything of how little material either gentleman has found to support this central Orion link – vague mentions here and there, astronomical manipulations, things alluded to, stretched interpretations, reading words and symbols in a selective way – but the most telling thing of all is the disproportionately small amount of evidence there is in comparison to the huge timescale, effort and physical presence of the pyramids themselves.

The contemporary religious and cultural pointers to Orion which should exist commensurate with the scale and importance of the pyramids simply isn’t there – and they should be, in the same way that a future archaeologist investigating our society would find innumerable cross or crucifix symbols and textual references to support his theory that our vast cathedrals (many laid out in the shape of a cross) are indicative of a widespread religion in our culture that involved the worship of a crucified man.

If Orion was important enough to the AEs for them to mimic it in the groundplan of the largest construction project imaginable, then it would surely be important enough to leave traces in every walk of life: jewellery, pottery, other monuments, hieroglyphs, all depicting or mimicking the three Orion stars. The same way the Christian cross permeates every aspect of our society. That is the elephant in the room – the complete lack of corroborating evidence on a scale commensurate with the pyramids. If there was, I’m sure RB would have found it by now.

In all these years, RB has come up with some interesting bits and bobs to do with Orion, but I hazard a guess that anyone who looked long and hard enough could come up with meaningful references to almost ANY constellation, individual star or planet visible to the AEs.

It is, after all, through this open door that Andrew Collins came trotting after Robert Bauval with his absurd Cygnus correlation theory.

This is the primary, inescapable point on which everything turns: the correlation is a false premise. As has been pointed out time and time again on this forum, the layout of the Giza pyramids can safely be explained in terms of geology. Once that is clear, bang goes the Orion correlation: the layout may look vaguely like the three Orion stars, but this is coincidental and not intentional. Once that is established, everything, absolutely everything which follows in the OCT, the GOCT, the Cygnus Correlation Theory is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what you look for, or how long you spend looking for it after that point. These guys can spend the rest of their lives trying to make the scant evidence support the structures they have conjured up, but it doesn’t matter, because the foundations are fatally flawed. The key is the initial correlation, which does not exist.

Wonderful, imaginative theories in their own way, but complete houses of cards. And now we have SB and SC squabbling over ridiculous small points about astronomical references and meaning, as if they have any impact whatsoever on the eventual validity of their theories which both – both – fell long before this, at the first hurdle.

With the greatest respect gentlemen you can argue over this kind of minutiae till the cows come home, but it doesn’t actually go anywhere and it doesn’t actually prove anything. There’s no point debating the more complex points like this when the entire premise is flawed – you’re simply wallpapering over the cracks in your theories with decorative historical and astronomical detail.