Ronald: Because your 'GOCT' obviously is based on Bauval's 'OCT' and because Bauval's 'OCT' has been proven numerous times to be scientifically wrong/unproven, imo, you are in no position to criticize him... A lot of people asked you the same question, because this anomaly invalidates your own theory too. I really do not understand where you get the guts to ask Bauval how the information was passed down ànd survived 8+ millenia, while your 'GOCT' is based on a so- called 'lost civilization' that 'observed Orion in 10.550 BC', thus also, like in Bauval's 'OCT', creating an unexplicable time-gap of 8.000 years.
SC: Ronald, I did not start this thread to discuss the merits or otherwise of my own theory - I have offered possible explanations to the questions you present above in various other threads on this board. I am not here to repeat those explanations.
This thread concerns itself with questions relating to Robert Bauval's OCT which require an answer within the ethos of the OCT.
Robert Bauval offers 2 possible epochs for the pyramids at Giza, vis-a-vis:
"So let me make my current position clear on the OCT and the dating of Giza.
As far as I am concerned, there are two and only two date possibilities:
1) The first hypothesis is that the correlation is not meant to be 'fixed' at the meridian transit of Orion's belt. In this case we can accept the Egyptological dating of c. 2500 BC.
2) The second hypothesis is that the correlation was meant to be 'fixed' at the meridian. This forces a date of 11,500 BC.
Regarding (2), I retain my claim that we could be looking at a plan to commemorate the 'first time' epoch (which I date astronomically to 11,500 BC) but with an actual implementation of that plan in c. 2500 BC."
From here:
[
www.grahamhancock.com]
SC: Robert Bauval also writes:
"Incidentally, this does not mean that the monuments were built or planned in 11,500 BC. Indeed, the 'first time/zep tepi' may just be a mythical event but which, for the Egyptians, was regarded as historically real (I suppose we could say as much for the Biblical 'genesis'). To them the epoch of the 'first time/zep tepi' took place with the sky-gods and thus could be determined with the changing sky i.e. precession. Did they know precession? I believe they did. I have argued as much in all my books and, more forcefully, in my last book The Egypt Code."
From here:
[
www.grahamhancock.com]
SC: I repeat my questions to Mr Bauval again, just in case he might still be in the building:
1) Why does he choose only 2 of the 3 triads of pyramids for the OCT? Surely if the three main pyramids fit the OCT and the three Queens of Menkaure fit the OCT (or did you drop this idea?), then it seems logical - or at least for the sake of consistency - that the third triad (the 3 Queens of Khufu) should also fit the OCT? Does Mr Bauval have an explanation for this apparent anomaly to his OCT?
2) It seems from previous postings Mr Bauval is actually stating that the AEs did in fact understand precession. I have not, however, read his latest book,
The Egypt Code so I am unsure at which point in time Mr Bauval credits the AEs with such advanced precessional knowledge and what hard evidence he has for such. Is he saying that the AEs could
calculate and project precessional motion thereby placing the Gizamids accordingly in c.2,500BC. Or his he saying a naked-eye observation was taken c. 11,500BC which introduced an error with Menkaure/Mintaka alignment? He seems to be saying both.
Would Mr Bauval care to enlighten this debate and clarify these points?
Scott Creighton
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2007 12:35PM by creigs1707.
