Dear Roger Highfield,
It was nice talking to you on the phone. I look forward to read you article on the BBC2 HORIZON "ATLANTIS REBORN" Programme. As you know, the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) has upheld the complaint regarding the Orion-Giza correlation theory. In the original programme the BBC brought in Dr. Ed Krupp, an American astronomer, who accused Robert Bauval or having placed maps 'upside down'. This grave and unfair accusations went to the very foundation and underpinning of my life's work, and much of the work of Graham Hancock. These preposterous accusations which the BBC allowed to be aired without any right of proper reply has much sickened many of the viewers who are conversant with my work, as well as many senior academics in this country.
Here below are three rebuttals from very senior British astronomers and their reaction to the BBC programme on this important issue. They have all agreed to either appear on the new broadcast of the programme or have their statement used by the BBC.
REBUTTALS TO Dr. ED KRUPP
By British Astronomers:
1) From British Astronomer, Dr. Mary Bruck, of Edinburgh University (the wife of the late Dr. Hermann Bruck, Astronomer Royal of Scotland):
"The layout on the ground of the three Giza Pyramids matches closely the pattern of the three stars in Orion's belt i.e. a row of three, the third and most westerly in both cases being offset slightly anticlockwise from the line of the other two. Furthermore, the Milky Way, perhaps seen as representing a celestial river Nile, is east of the constellation of Orion, as the Nile itself is to the east of the Pyramids. When Orion is on the meridian, an observer who takes up a position north of the pyramids and faces SOUTH will see the Belt of Orion directly in front of him in the sky, with the adjacent part of the Milky Way some distance to the Belt's left. The same observer will also see the pyramids in front of him on the ground in a similar configuration, and the Nile to the left... The layout of the pyramids (whether by coincidence or design) may be said to imitate the pattern of the Belt stars."
Dr. Mary Bruck has confirmed to me today that this statement may be used by myself or others, and she is available to the BBC to give her commentaries on this specific point either on film or in narration. Her email is email@example.com
2) From Dr. Archie Roy, Glasgow University
Professor Emiritus, and senior lecturer in Astrnomy,
Department of Physics and Astronomy
"I find it astonishing that you have been accused of fudging the maps of Egypt and particularly the Pyramid complex to make your theory 'fit'. In particularly that the maps were deliberately placed upside down. This is a serious accusation. I have of course checked the orientation of the Orion constellation when it is on the south meridian, when an observer at Giza looks southwards from the Giza complex. Of course one finds that Orion's head is upper-most from the rest of his body further down towards the south point of the compass. The Milky Way is seen to be on the left of the body (i.e. it's right ascension is bigger that Orion's) and the star Alnitak in Orion's Belt is the star in the belt nearest to the Milky Way. The third star in the belt (the one farthest from the Milky Way) is placed upwards from the line through Alnitak and the belt's middle star. If our observer is standing north of the three pyramids and looking southwards, s/he will see (a) the Nile to the left of the Pyramid, (b) the Great Pyramid (Khufu) to be the pyramid nearest to the Nile, (c) the pyramid farthest from the Nile (Menkaure) to be placed southwards from the line through the Great Pyramid and the middle pyramid (Khafre). If our observers then imagines the plane containing the pyramids and the Nile swung upwards about an east-west line through the observer, the s/he will see a fair representation of Orion's Belt and the Milky Way, the 'Belt' bent correctly. The accusation that the maps were placed upside down is therefore unfounded."
3) From Dr. Percy Seymour, Plymouth University
Senior lecturer in astronomy.
Subj: Re: From Robert G. Bauval
Date: 24/11/00 09:05:13 GMT Standard Time
From: P.Seymour@plymouth.ac.uk (P Seymour)
Below I give my rebuttal.
Dr Krupp has fallen into the trap that many modern astronomers
encounter when they try to fit ancient concepts and beliefs,
concerning the cosmos, into the procrustean bed of modern science.
He has overlooked the fact that to the ancient Egyptians the Earth
was not a sphere surrounded by another - the celestial sphere. There
is no evidence that they thought in terms of north, south, east and
west. The east to them was the region of the land where the Sun rose
at the beginning of spring, and the west the region in which it set.
The stars near the north celestial pole were seen as the stars that
knew no death. There is not the slightest scrap of evidence that
they thought in terms of latitude and longitude - indeed these
concepts surface very much later in Greek astronomy and geography.
Bauval's work relates to a much earlier time in the history of
astronomical thought. I firmly believe that Krupp's attack on the
work of Bauval is unwarranted and should not be given much weight.
The possible attempt to represent Orion in relation to the Nile
could, very simply, have been a pictorial representation of what they
saw in the sky with regard to the relationship between the Orion
constellation and the Milky Way. I said as much in my book THE
BIRTH OF CHRIST (Virgin 1998)
Percy A H Seymour M Sc, Ph D, FRAS, M Inst Phys, C Phys.
Member of the International Astronomical Union
Principal Lecturer in Astronomy, University of Plymouth
Other similar rebuttals against Dr. Krupp have been provided to me by Dr. David Mackay and Dr. Chris Doran, astrophysicists at Cambridge University.
All the best
Robert G. Bauval
|Rebuttals to Ed Krupp||379||Robert G. Bauval||09-Dec-00 19:05|
|RE: Rebuttals to Ed Krupp||172||robert hearn||09-Dec-00 19:30|
|RE: Rebuttals to Ed Krupp||184||Brad||09-Dec-00 19:48|
|RE: Rebuttals to Ed Krupp||143||Barbara||09-Dec-00 19:56|
|RE: Rebuttals to Ed Krupp||148||laura||10-Dec-00 00:13|
|RE: Rebuttals to Ed Krupp||187||Robert G. Bauval||10-Dec-00 09:12|
|RE: Rebuttals to Ed Krupp||93||laura||10-Dec-00 09:48|
|A response to your message elsewhere||148||Fuzzy||10-Dec-00 16:24|
|A response to your message elsewhere||205||Fuzzy||10-Dec-00 16:29|
|RE: A response to your message elsewhere||105||Brad||10-Dec-00 20:02|
|RE: Rebuttals to Ed Krupp||179||William John Meegan||11-Dec-00 20:08|