Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Spiros,
>
> All I will say here is that, IMO, any theory of
> the Gizamids must explain ALL of the pyramids
> there and not only the three large pyramids. The
> Orion correlation with the Gizamids is further
> supported by the relative placement of the two
> sets of so-called 'Queens Pyramids' . . .

Really? So explain to us why the sizes of the queens’ pyramids are not proportional to the magnitudes of the stars they supposedly represent. Explain the lack of offset of a third pyramid (representing Mintaka) in each case. Explain to us how the subsidiary pyramids of Khufu and Khafre fit into this scheme. And isn’t it perhaps a little too convenient that the “culminations” cited happen to differ in the alignment of the asterism by 90°, allowing its representation by pyramids aligned on north-south and east-west axes?

M.