Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bauval's OCT has always had
> corroboratory evidence. And it now has even more
> corroboratory evidence. It's called the GOCT.
> And this additional evidence is simply too
> compelling to be easily dismissed.
>

With all respect Scott, this is exactly my point about theories like this being houses of cards which can hold themselves up - because you've left real methodology (and fact based logic) behind.

I've looked at your presentation again, and at no point do you prove the link with Orion which is crucial at the beginning to substantiate what follows. To give you credit, your theory seems to completely dwarf the OCT in terms of scale and meaning (I could never quite understand the controversy surrounding the initial Orion correlation as, apart from claiming the existence of a star religion for which no further proof has been found, it doesn't really "go" anywhere). Yours at least has drama - previous civilisations, vast timescales, cataclysms past and in the future - but all of this stems from the realms of the imagination, and the "logic" is all "if" and "then" - if the pyramids represent Orion, then they actually form a precessional wheel, etc. It is an entertaining theory, and you argue it well in your own way, but please take it from me, someone who is reasonably open minded and who genuinely enjoys reading this type of thing - and who totally accepts, yes, we don't know all there is to know yet - you simply cannot ask me to accept your theory because it all flows from one inescapable unproven point. You are essentially looking for a willing suspension of disbelief, and that is a totally inappropriate request in this context.

I would say to you, go out and find that proof linking the pyramids to Orion, and then I would almost certainly look at your theory in a different light - but Robert Bauval has spent years looking for it, and surely now knows it isn't there, as all he has found are the slimmest of pickings which certainly don't indicate anything important enough upon which to base the layout at Giza.

Personally, I feel there is sometimes a mental block when it comes to the pyramids. It seems unbelievable that such vast structures - and all the skill, work and effort that went into building them - represent simply the tombs of a handful of individuals and nothing else, no greater meaning, no message, no mystery. But look at autocratic societies down the ages - huge structures have always been built to the personal glorification of egocentric rulers. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Enver Hoxha, look at North Korea today with it's bizarre, empty Olympic stadiums, look at Qin Shi Huangdi and his 8000 terracotta warriors - sometimes it just doesn't make sense Scott, sometimes it's just the grandoise schemes of people with more vanity and power than sense. The 4th Dynasty pharaohs wanted to leave their mark on history with their mausoleums - and here we are, 4500 years later still arguing about them! They'd be laughing in their graves if it hadn't been for the robbers...