Kat: "I'm sorry, but your posting of yesterday showing the pyramids matching up to three stars from Orion (other than the ones in his belt) and this one showing the pyramids matching up to three stars from Leo (which the AE didn't know as a constellation) just prove what I've thought all along that you could make these three pyramids match up to a lot of stars in the sky."


Sah_4 used the same three stars in the distinctive 3-star asterism (the 'Belt' stars) in Orion that RB used in his OCT - he just flipped them.


There are about 4000 stars in the sky that we can play with, but that number can be considerably narrowed down to fairly bright stars and distinctive easily recognizable 3-star patterns. These can be narrowed down even further to those star patterns that we can be reasonably certain were recognized by the AE in the Old Kingdom.

Our knowledge of their sky awareness comes from the Old Kingdom PTs, and its here we find those stars / star patterns that were mentioned in the context of the royal afterlife beliefs - Orion (sAH), Sirius (spdt) and the Big Dipper / Plough (msxtjw) - these three have been, with a fair amount of certainty, identified by scholars, although many other stars / planets are mentioned in the PTs, but are more difficult to identify with any real certainty.


Of these three, only one is a distinctive 3-star pattern that closely matches the 3-pyramid layout at Giza - the distinctive 3-star asterism in the centre of the constellation of Orion personified by the deity Sah, the 'Father of the Gods'.


So, although its true that "you could make these three pyramids match up to a lot of stars in the sky", how many of these stars are mentioned in the royal afterlife beliefs of the OK, and how many are distinctive 3-star asterisms?


Its all about assessing the possibility of coincidence - considering evidence in context rather than in isolation - here is a good example:


"The defense attorney's fallacy occurs when evidence is considered in isolation, rather than in totality. This type of error happened during O. J. Simpson's preliminary hearing. The prosecution presented evidence that blood from the murder scene, when analyzed using conventional grouping techniques, matched the accused, with characteristics shared by 1 in 400 people. The defense argued that an entire football stadium could be filled with people in Los Angeles who also would match; therefore, the evidence was useless.

While the first part of the defense argument regarding the number of matches is correct, only a limited number of those people had relationships with the victims and even fewer had any reason for wanting to kill them. The probability of an individual filling all three categories (equal to the individual probabilities multiplied together) is very low. Consequently, the second part of the argument - that the evidence is useless - is incorrect."


Even though the defence's argument was flawed, they won the case.

CT