> There is another way of interpreting what you
> offer...the Milky Way Galaxy viewed when it is
> upright from the horizon. You end up with a
> celestial river crossing from the southern
> hemisphere to the northern, from below the horizon
> to above, and Orion and all his pals spread out in
> such a view which seemingly correspond to the Nile
> River and particular stars here and there. You can
> get the belt stars of Orion equating to the Giza
> pyramids from that...and extend out to Bauval's
> offering too about other pyramids in their
> Things don't have to go too far in what they
> equate to if we delve into celestial appearances
> first. That's the basis of the AE beliefs, yes?
Of course you're right.
But I firmly believe we can both be exactly right because Egyptians didn't think at all like Egyptologists. The writing could represent/ mirror/ reflect many things simultaneously because they thought in many ways simultaneously. Where Egyptologists see "puns" maybe these are merely symptomatic of multiple layers of thought that rhymed and reflected the same reality from other perspectives.
Somehow Egyptologists never considered ancient people weren't like them. All you have to do is study the Ancient Language and you can see that they didn't even have any abstractions! Without abstraction there can be no symbolism, no religion, and no magic. We simply don't understand which is so ironic since their meaning is hidden in plain site in the literal meaning of what they wrote.
Why won't they admit that stones were pulled straight up the sides? Why must they maintain the fiction that there was no technology but ramps when the physical evidence is "in your face" and they never saw it?