Robert Bauval's OCT offers 2 possible means for us to determine two vastly different dates from the Giza monuments.

Option 1:
Date c. 10,500 BC

This date is achieved through a meridian to meridian match of the 3 Great Pyramids with the culmination of the Orion Belt stars. Also locking this date is the Great Sphinx facing east where in this Age, the constellation of Leo rose due east. The third element to lock the 10,500 BC date is the orientation and placement of the Milky Way which Bauval imagines as mimicking the axis of the Nile. And finally, Bauval explains that it can be no coincidence that this remote date "...rather precisely and surgically marks the beginning of a precessional half-cycle." (Keeper of Genesis p.76) This option, however, requires the existence of a highly sophisticated civilisation towards the end of the last Ice Age who knew of such things.

Option 2:
Date c. 2,500BC

Using the 4 shafts in the Great Pyramid, the various angles of inclination match (more or less) the elevations at meridian transit four stars that were important in AE mythology, namely Kochab associated with cosmic regeneration and immortality of the soul; Sirius associated with the Goddess Isis; Thuban associated with cosmic pregnancy and gestation and finally, Al Nitak associated with Osiris. The elevations of these stars matched the inclinations of the pyramid shafts at this time. However, in this epoch Leo does not rise due east but some 28* north of east. And neither in this epoch does the Milky Way mimic the Nile but is 'skewed'.

There is, of course, a third option:

option 3:
Both dates. This option, however, requires of the AEs of the 4th Dynasty advanced knowledge of astronomy, including a deep understanding of the workings of precession.

Can Robert offer some of his time to explain to us which of the above options his theory supports and why?

Thanks.

Scott Creighton