In his book, Keeper of Genesis/Message of the Sphinx, Robert Bauval writes the following:

"...immediately south of the third and smallest of the three great Pyramids is a group of three 'satellite' pyramids. Egyptologists generally refer to them as the 'tombs' of queens of the Pharaoh Menkaure. Since they contain no inscriptions, nor the slightest trace of human remains or funerary equipment, such an attribution can never be anything more than a matter of opinion. However these 'satellite' pyramids do have an unambiguous astronomical alignment: they form a neat row running east-west - the equinox sunrise-sunset direction.

The British geometrician and pyramid researcher, Robin Cook, has recently shown that these three satellite pyramids bear a designed relationship to the Giza necropolis as a whole. They appear to be located on a boundary of a circle , or artificial 'horizon', the focus of which is the Pyramid of Khafre and the circumference of which envelops the whole necropolis. An angle of 27 degrees west of south - corresponding to an azimuth of 207 degrees - seems to be defined by a straight line extending from the meridian axis of the Pyramid of Khafre to these three 'satellite' pyramids of Menkaure. In general the satellites give the impression of being 'reduced models' of the three Great Pyramids. What is notably different, however, is that the latter lie at an angle of 45 degrees to the meridian, while the former run from east to west at right-angles to the meridian. This apparent architectural anomaly, together with their curious location at azimuth 207 degrees on the artificial 'horizon' of Giza begs an obvious question: are we again looking at datable sky event frozen in architecture?

The computer confirms that we are. In 10,500BC, on the real horizon of Giza, the lowest of the three stars of Orion's Belt, Al Nitak, set at 27 degrees west of south - i.e. at azimuth 207 degrees. Moreover, the belt stars at that moment would have formed an axis running east-west - the alignment that is mimicked by the three satellite pyramids."

Keeper of Genesis/Message of the Sphinx (p. 266/7)

Notwithstanding the fact that the angles presented by Bauval in his book are inaccurate, there is something very obviously missing from the above passage.

The geometrician, Robin Cook, showed not only that the three 'satellites' of Menkaure were bound by this circle, but also the three 'satellite' pyramids of Khufu. Why then does Bauval make a correlation with Orion using only the three Great pyramids and the three 'satellites' of Menkaure? Since Cook's circle binds both sets of 'satellites' then surely simple logic alone should dictate that the final triad of pyramids, Khufu's satellites', should also somehow fit into the picture Bauval is trying to portray? But Bauval never makes any mention of the three 'satellites' of Khufu in this context. Instead, he elects to completely ignore them. But surely it stands to reason that if the three great Pyramids are linked to Orion and the three Queens of Menkaure are linked to Orion, Cook's circle virtually demands that the three 'satellites' of Khufu should also be linked to Orion! If a correlation with Orion cannot be found for these structures then the OCT can be reduced to nothing more than cherry-picking by Bauval (what fits is in, what doesn't is out) and the whole edifice of the theory collapses.

Does Mr Bauval have an explanation for the three 'satellites' of Khufu fitting into the OCT?

Mr Bauval presents very specific alignments in this passage - 207 degrees for the placement of the Menkaure 'satellites' from a Khafre centre. Mr Bauval also talks of the accuracy with which the three great Pyramids were actually placed and accounts for the error of Menkaure/Mintaka due to naked eye observation. This, however, is completely illogical. How can there possibly have been naked eye observation of these stars to place these three pyramids when the observed alignment is apparently separated from the construction by 8,000 years? Now that is some naked-eye observation! How exactly was such detailed information, presumably along with the naked-eye observational error of Menkaure/Mintaka, passed down through 8,000 years? Simply saying the alignment to 10,500 or 11,500 is a 'problem' won't do. It isn't just an alignment that was transmitted - the error in the alignment must also have been transmitted.

Exactly how do you explain this transmission of such detailed information over such a long period of time, Mr Bauval? How was this error in the Menkaure/Mintaka alignment transmitted over such a long period of time, from when it was first made? Do you accept that the AEs must have replicated the error? Or, are you actually saying that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty made the error themselves by calculating the precessional motion of Orion back 8,000 or 9,000 years?

Regards,

Scott Creighton





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2007 05:25PM by creigs1707.