Bauval's theory has some good points, but there is no getting around the fact that the largest distance is between the Great Pyramid and Khafre's pyramid. To match the Orion's Belt stars it would be insane to use Alnitak as the Great pyramid, because that would have the opposite result. As my images show, the orientation of the three pyramid group also doesn't match the stars on the date specified by Bauval. I suspect the true matching date would be some purely random and insignificant year.
Bauval also says that Orion's low point is involved. I found the true low point and it is in 10,650 BC, which is not a date ever mentioned by Bauval or Hancock, though it is close to Hancock's 10,500 BC. Bauval used the date 11,541 BC because it was a Great Sothic Year rollover date. The problem being that the Orion stars don't match the pyramids on that date, as I mentioned and demonstrated. His choice of Alnitak based on brightness is also bogus, because you really can't even discern a significant difference in brightness by eye anyway.
There is really nothing complicated or illogical about my method of depicting the stars. If Orion's Belt were directly above the pyramids, each star would be directly above its corresponding pyramid. That would make more sense than Bauval's method of depiction which would be of no significance unless you were up in the air above Giza so you could simultaneously see the pyramids and the constellation, and why would you want to do that? Now let's say you were lying down in a pyramid chamber, like a dead pharaoh. The tops of the pyramids, which mark the stars, are all above you. Thus, from that viewpoint the tops would correspond correctly to the stars whereas in Bauval's method they would be all messed up. Where would the dead Pharaoh's viewpoint be from, up in the air above Giza or below the pyramid tops? In fact, any viewer would be at ground level, below the pyramid tops, even if he wasn't inside them.
There is also nothing illogical about "rotating" the Orion drawing to horizontal. I showed an image of Osiris/Orion depicted in that very position and another showing Osiris mummified in that position. Therefore, it is an absolute fact that the Egyptians DID rotate Orion to horizontal whereas it is not a known fact that they cared about what the constellation looked like on the South meridian at a time prior to 10,000 BC, or any other time for that matter. We have no depictions of Orion on the meridian. He's not even straight up when on the meridian as he is in standing depictions.
My theory is a more accurate matching of the stars to the pyramids and corresponds exactly to AE depictions of a horizontal Orion/Osiris. So simply comparing the facts of the two theories, Bauval's is clearly inferior. You may like his more, for whatever subjective reasons, but I'm talking about comparing them based on objective facts.
Why is the middle star not exactly on the center of Khafre's pyramid? Well, it's almost exactly on the East/West centerline of the pyramid, off by less than 4 cubits to the South which is well within acceptable margins of error. It is almost exactly 40 cubits East of pyramid center. Now what if there is another chamber below ground at that point? The other two pyramids have subterranean chambers but Khafre's doesn't have a known one. Rather odd, unless there really IS one but it is completely covered over with no passages being apparent. Maybe that's where Khufu and Khafre are buried. It seems more like a planned deviation of the star position from the center of the pyramid than an error, being virtually right on the E/W centerline.
