> Yes, apparently for the foreseeable future, at
> least on the star alignment front, so we need to
> agree to disagree.
I was reffering to the RCD, but you would be correct on both counts. Among others no doubt.
> Abydos is at latitude 26.18, Thinis is at 26.33;
> neither are at 26.5.
I have been misinformed then. The actual location of Thinis is unknown, but agreed to have been little north of Abydos. Sorry, what does 26°31'23” equate to exactly again?
> And once again, please stop trying to visit my
> intentions and just mind the words being posted.
> You keep insisting you know what I "want" but you
> do not. It is as if you are the one who
> "wants" me to want a different scenario, and
> perhaps that's because it's difficult to find the
> logic that would justify the star alignment
> scenario in the first place.
What "you want" you have made perfectly clear time and again as there is nothing you do not see through the filter of being tens of thousands if not millions of years old. Every day Your words speak for themselves despite your protestations to the contrary so just own it.
Regardless, again, regarding Thuban, as interesting and tidy as it would be if it were the target of the DP's obviously the idea has its weaknesses which the main reason for bringing it up it to explore the idea that if the DP's were in fact stellar aligned then what were they aligned at which may possibly tell us when. While it may not be the case, warts and all, Thuban is still at least possible.
> My only point is that since there are other
> consistent angles throughout ancient Egyptian
> architecture, it seems like cherry-picking to
> claim that one angle necessarily "points to"
> something in the sky while other angles do not,
> without providing a logical rule that discerns a
> reason for that discretion.
I addressed this point multiple times. You don't agree, which is fine, but what I am saying has merit.
> But it's not a fixed point at all. An off-axis
> star is in constant motion as it circumscribes the
> north pole. It makes a complete 360 degree
> revolution about that pole every 24 hours. Thuban
> would have been a moving target during every
> second of every day. And considering that when
> Thuban may have been visible during apart od the
> day in 3000 BC, it would have been a full 3.5
> degrees off-axis in its excursion (30N lat vs.
> 26.5 deg DP), that's quite a large movement for
> such an allegedly "fixed point". How do you think
> the builders were able to capture the position and
> angle of that "fixed point" during that specific
> time each day and during the many years it likely
> took to build that passage? Surely no one believes
> Thuban would have been visible as a "fixed point"
> in that same position in the sky during the entire
> construction of that 100m passage.
A "fixed point" in the sense it is an object to align to not that it "never" moves. It is not required to be fixed along its length during construction, but only for enough time to sight the line to set the angle.
> I do not. Sorry. Just because the DP is steeper
> than those 4.6 degree causeways does not mean it
> is pointing to something while the others are not.
> So what is the rationale that makes you believe
> the DP is pointing at something?
I've said why several times. I've also said several times it may in fact be just coincidence, with diagram (see below), and not point at anything.
> No idea what you mean by that. I see no reason to
> believe the incline in your diagram is necessarily
> intended to point to anything in particular.
It clearly says it points to "nowhere in particular". See comment directly above.
> I'm talking about
> Collins' Cygnus correlation.
Apologies to Mr Collins, but I never gave it much thought to be honest with you.