Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ronald: Conclusion ; I am convinced it is very
> hypocrite to refute an older theory that
> nevertheless was good enough for you to build your
> own upon.
>
> SC: From what you have said, Ronald, it is
> patently clear that You do not understand my
> theory. The fact that you have not read my book
> does, of course, explain your lack of knowledge of
> my work.


Well, just as you said you do not need to read Mr. Bauval's books to realize his theories comprise contradictions/anomalies, I do not need to read yours to come to the same conclusion, again because you 'borrowed' Bauval's base on which the invalid OCT is built to brew 'your own theory'.

You simply do not/are not willing to understand what I am trying to say to you.

1) OCT/Mr. Bauval ; is based on the supposed existence approx. 12.500 years ago (that makes approx. 10.500 BC) of a lost, advanced progenitor civilization,

2) GOCT/you ;

[www.grahamhancock.com]
The Official Graham Hancock Website: Forum

you wrote ;


'Such might have been the scenario SOME 12,500 YEARS AGO (this also makes approx. 10.500 BC, exactly the same as in Bauval) when OUR ANCIENT ANCESTORS ..... But it seems that OUR ANCIENT ANCESTORS were also aware of something much more worrying - the cyclical nature of such galactic core explosions and so they laid down this 'sacred knowledge' in a 'codex' - a plan - that later generations of THEIR DEVASTATED CIVILISATION would build. We see this 'codex' today as the Pyramids of Giza, built during the 4th Dynasty of the Ancient Egyptian civilisation.'


This proves beyond any doubt that you make use of exactly the same anomaly as Mr. Bauval (an unevidenced, advanced Upper Paleolithic civilization) to form the base of your 'GOCT'. Consequently and logically, all other details of the 'GOCT' (the 'importance' of the Menkaoere sattelite pyramids), become invalid.

So, you making the same mistake (simply taking it over) as Mr. Bauval, you can't have the right to criticise his books. This is what I am trying to say to you. How can you start a thread on the validity of the OCT while, at the same time, your GOCT starts from the same anomalous base ? Thus, actually, you are questioning/criticizing your own theory.

By the way, apparantly Mr. Bauval was the first to consider and evaluate the location of the Menkaoere sattelite pyramids, NOT you ;


[www.grahamhancock.com]
The Official Graham Hancock Website: The Mysteries


'About you post: my honest opinion is that I don't think that your Menkaure 'queen's pyramid' = setting of Orion's belt azimuth angle will convince archaeoastronomers or Egyptologists. As a matter of fact I had long ago looked into that idea myself (I've shown this idea of Orion's belt setting and the Queen's pyramids before), but dropped the idea as I felt it was unconvincing.


Fond regards

Robert'




Ronald.