Ogygos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with this theory is that Thuban was
> almost 2 degrees off the North pole. If they
> wanted to encode this why not chose an angle 30 –
> 2 = 28 degrees? It makes no sense.

Ogy:
You missed the point.
If you can imagine placing yourself inside the pyramid at the entrance of the descending passage looking toward north you will see the full view of the northern section of sky. As you venture further down the passage then the area of observed sky is restricted to a point where that is all you do see...a small ”point” of sky. But Earth turns, therefore you will see that small point “encircled” around the true North Pole in a toroidal shape ...”and”...following the precessional circle over the millennium...!


The angle of 26.56 is mathematical, relating to another aspect of the pyramid...you are trying to make it into an observation point for a specific star...as you see...it cannot be attained.

> Thus it doesn’t seem that
> it encodes Thuban at least at Giza.

It’s not encoding any star, but if we reconsider what they are doing then it is "possible" that a star was near the North Pole when construction took place.
Thuban was never on the precessional circle...close but no cigar...likewise with Polaris. However...what is known is Thuban was darn close about 2,700 BC, therefore the Giza site could date back to that era.
If the direction of view was intentional to allow for the observation of Thuban and this event was "after" the point of precession passing Thuban then we simple deduct the time required for Earth to travel 3+ degrees along the precessional circle and that would be 200-250 years. subtract this time from the 2,700 BC and we have 2,600-2,550 BC

Not bad...darn close to what Egyptologists and carbon dating proclaim.

NOTE: Precise Observation of Thuban, as illustrated, would be seasonal

Best.
Clive