> 1- I note you cannot produce the altitudes of
> Thuban in the year 2450 B.C....I am not surprised.
Thuban at it's highest altitude : 31°59. Lowest altitude : 28°28
The lowest is 2° off the DP
> When you finally get around to actually verifying
> this for yourself, you will see that even
> this sample view
> frame (Menkaure) would show it if it pointed to
Really. Each star in Orion's belt is 2° apart. So you're saying two of the belt stars would be visible looking out from within the DP. Ok, now go outside, look at Orion and observe how far apart two of the belt stars are. And you think you'd have this wide of view from within the DP?
> The figures are 28 09' and 31. Both of
> these are well within view of the descending
> passage even if you actually descend quite some
> ways into it, which is not even the point. The
> point is the D.P. is some , what, 20 (?) times
> larger than the half-cubit shafts which means
> there is a lot more of a view field around the
> north star.
The deeper you go into the DP, the smaller the view becomes. Which would be a large point to argue against your convictions. In order to see a star at 30° from the DP, you would need an opening that afforded a 2 or 3 or 4° view to spot Thuban as it made it's circular journey through the night. In the photo below, the blue box shows a 2° spacing on each side of the meridian. This area may look small enough to accomodate your imagination, but take it to reality and look at the sky. That's a large area.
> 2-The fact that the queen shafts are closed off is
> completely irrelevant to the liturgical meaning
> here. The king's soul was not going towards either
> Horus or Kochab. It was going towards "Rostau" for
> resurrection which is the core of the Osiris/Orion
> and from there to the imperishable star zone,
> which is Thuban...(king shaft north). Your
> "rebuttal" shows zero knowledge of Egyptian
> religion and an utter ignorance of the actual
> meaning behind the star alignment theory by
> Bauval. So much for a thoughtful counter.
Your "liturgical meaning" presupposes the pyramids were tombs. Without this assumption, it is MOST relevant.
Since when is having a knowledge of Egyptian religion necessary for specifying which stars are visible at 26°? It's not necessary and has absolutely no bearing on what is actually visible at a specific angle at a specific time.
Ignorance of the details of Bauval's OCT is a blessing. Thanos can make unbiased observations without Bauval. His viewpoint will not be tainted with Bauval's tales.
Ignorance of Bauval's ideas has no bearing on whether any of the passages pointed to Thuban.
> 3- The fact that the shafts are bent is also
> completely irrelevant, because what matters are
> where the shafts surfaced (remarkably close to
> each other it turns out) and in what direction
> they opened.
Others have brought up reasons why your logic fails. In fact, your logic can only stand if you totally disregard the construction of the shafts. Cannot think of one good reason why you would do this other than to make Bauval's ideas possible.
> I suggest you formulate your own prose next time
> and not dish up the warmed up opinion of someone
> who didn't think this through with any kind of
> care.. And please....stop referring
> me to your own old posts. Use your keyboard!
Looks like you're dishing up Bauval. Unless you are actually Bauval using a fake name here, your opinions are not your own, and you are unable to substantiate his.