Thadd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joanne Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > The PT were written after the Gizamids were
> built.
> > Some of the texts may be older than the date
> at
> > which they are fist attested, but if that is
> the
> > case, it argues in favor of linking those
> texts
> > with the earlier funeral projects.
>
> But there is no basis on which to make this
> assumption.

Euh? You wrote:

Quote

> 1) While parts of the PTs are older
> linguistically, they cannot be contextually linked
> in this case

If you accept that the PT are older than their attested date, that argues in favor of linking them with earlier funerary projects. The basis is that they are funerary texts found in pyramids.


> > Have you ever read the OCT? One of Bauval's
> > points is that the Gizamids resemble the
> Belt
> > stars in their arrangement; neither the
> Gizamids
> > nor the stars are simply "in a row."
>
> Scott basis it on the other pyramids which are in
> a row, which was where the origional response here
> was pulled.

I have no idea what you mean here.

> Additionally, whatever Bauval says, the pyramids
> do not match, in angle or dirrection the stars in
> the orion belt.

That's simply not true. The arrangement of the pyramids does match the arrangement of the Belt stars. Whether that's intentional or coincidental is another issue. But the resemblence is there.

> > Actually that date has nothing to do with
> the
> > original OCT -- I'm not sure what you mean by
> the
> > "general" OCT. Before you decide anything
> is
> > nonsense, you ought to be certain you
> understand
> > what is being proposed.

> from wiki on BauvalQuote: In particular, the
> aspects of the OCT which claim there is a link
> between the Ancient Egyptian structures at Giza
> and the constellations as they looked some 12500
> years ago are yet to find any support from within
> the field.
> See also , Archaeological Fantasies
>
> So yes, this is part of the theory.

I asked you earlier if you had actually read the OCT, which does not depend on such an early date. You did not answer. I assume you haven't. If you are going to rely on second hand accounts from questionable sources such as Wikipedia, you're going to be misled.