Thadd: In his books and interviews its the 10,500 date.

SC: Yes, Robert does invoke the 10,500BC date in his book (updated in The Egypt code to 11,500BC). Certainly from the elements he uses to lock down the date, the c.10,500BC date offers a better correlation with the elements he uses. It is interesting though that in his recent interview with Guy Leigh he makes no mention of the 10,500BC or 11,500BC dates.

Of course, by indicating that the slight misalignment between Mintaka/Menkaure is due to naked eye observation he is, by implication, saying that he accepts the design was layed out in c. 10,500BC (11,500BC).

By extension, he must also accept then that the 4 pyramid shafts were also locked to this date. I say locked because Bauval himself has argued in his books that the Giza master plan was very rigid and even Menkaure was bound by its constraints, resulting in him obtaining a much smaller pyramid than his predecessors.

So, if the design is indeed locked to 10,500BC (11,500BC) then we have to accept that so too must the 4 pyramid shafts of Khufu. It follows then that the 4 shafts cannot possibly have been directed to Sirius, Al Nitak, Kochab and Thuban for in 10,500BC these stars were not at the elevations that matched the inclinations of the pyramid shafts in that epoch!

Unless, of course, Robert is claiming that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty altered the inclination of the shafts to correlate with their preferred stars? But then this contradicts Bauval's argument that the master plan was rigid.

Whichever way you look at Bauval's argument, it would seem contradictory and ultimately this does his OCT no good. He simply must offer an answer to this otherwise his theory concerning the pyramid shafts has no real basis.

In the next few days I will be presenting a new theory concerning the shafts.

Regards,

Scott



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2007 09:07AM by creigs1707.