GChase Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can you recommend Krupp as this is not
> relevant now ?

It was a simple case of clip and paste
>
> It was written by an astronomer and as you have
> said the AE's understanding of the cosmos was so
> different to ours and was to do with magic and
> mythology.




>
> The article was written as a criticism of Bauval's
> 1994 book The Orion Mystery and pertains to that
> only.


It relevant to any assumed correlation with stars, asterisms or constellations
>
> The criticism hinged on a modern application of
> cardinality.


>
> It also assumed, as in the book, that the shafts
> of Khufu's pyramid were part of the (multi
> generational) 3 pyramid project at Giza.
>
> We now think otherwise, and you have read in one
> of my posts that Khafre planned the three at Giza,
> and so he interpreted the stellar representations
> in his own way which did not create any
> contradictions.


WE?

how can you say this while at the same time putting forward a propostion that makes even less sense, to my thinking than that the OCT?


Furthermore who are you to say that Mark not be apprised of all the arguments?

So that he can better weigh them for themselves?

or would you prefer that I only offer reference that supports my, your or anyone else's conclusions?

Mark shold be allowed to follow the same learning curve as the rest of us

he should be allowed to Read De Lubitz and Petrie,Bauval and Lehner..as well as the posts of
Chase and Nixon

Less is never more


warwick












" I have always found that the main obstacle to free
association on these boards is the broad
misconception that what we do not know is more
significant than what we do know."

Warwick L Nixon, March 8, 2019