Hi Alex,

I was fiddling about with Skyglobe and noticed the Kochab/Orion correlation but can't remember if Bauval knew about it - i lost contact after 1994. But I did notice the apparent vertical alignment between Belegeuse and Alnitak, although at the then supposed date 2450 BC. At the same time I noticed that the 'layout' position of the belt stars, with Saiph vertically below Alnitak, matched the pyramids only when the constellation was to the south east. Chris Tedder noticed this around the same time and proposed a pyramid alignment pointing to this position. I wished to demonstrate that Bauval's 104500 BC date does not produce the pyramid layout position -

[freeimage.host]

I must admit that my approach in those days was rather rough and ready, caught up in the excitement of the moment. Since then I've changed my ideas.

Moving on, you asked about the shafts in plan. I'm not quite sure where I got those, they came from Gantenbrink. I separated them into three drawings -

[freeimage.host]

Looking at Fig.16 in your paper, with Dubhe and Mizar in the aq position, it is tempting to speculate on the position of Thuban. As usual it's a question of getting hard data for the azimuth of the shaft, presumably from Gantenbrink.

Concerning your comparison of shaft data one can see that things are a mess.

The few responses from authories to my shaft questions have so far been assertive but lacking in any kind of academic reference. Apparently my 'blue level' is incorrect due to confusion in course height estimates, as well as 'corrections' made by M and R to Petrie's figures. However it is asserted that 'Gantenbrink confirmed the 154 estimate of M and R' and that both shaft exits are on the same level.
Gantenbrink's web site indeed shows him climbing and studying the shaft exits so perhaps he made his own survey? However one continues to wonder how Petrie could present a diagram explicitly showing different exit heights, but which Gantenbrink says are at the same level. If such assertions are true where is the evidence to back them up?

25 years is surely sufficient time for the publication of definitive figures which would clear up what we now see is a rather important problem.

Robin