Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Dear Dr Boogie,

I'm reluctant to write a long reply to this message because I get the impression that you only came here to give leave a quick comment, never to return. I judge that from the fact that you show no familiarity at all with the work of Hancock or Bauval, neither of whom are claiming the Pyramids at Giza were built in 10,500BC. According to the Giza-Orion correlation theory (which is what I believe you're making a confused reference to) is that the astronomical alignments of the three pyramids at Giza were specifically intended, by the pyramid builders (living in the 3rd Millenium BC) to "lock" the date 10,500BC, which corresponded to their mythical time, Zep Tepi.

If you read the other messages I've left in this thread, you'll see that we actually know rather a lot about Kate Spence and her ideas (yes we've read the Nature article, and a lot more besides).

In addition to the Giza-Orion Correlation Theory, Bauval has also argued (back in 1994) that the orientation to thuban and kochar of North-South oriented shafts within the Great Pyramid can, thanks to precession, be used to get a more precise esimate for the dating of the Pyramid. Using this method Bauval reached the date of 2450BC, which is around 25 years more recent than the date reached by Spence (in my last message I think I suggested Spence's date was 4567BC, but the New Scientist article has it as 4575-4585BC - i've read so many articles on this and they're all giving slightly different dates/ranges, i got confused - my mistake). Given the range of error here due to max expected accuracy of 20arc-minutes for naked-eye observations, that difference is tiny or negligible.

The conclusion - the bulk of Spence's argument was done by someone else (Robert Bauval) in 1994 and it neither contradicts nor supports the precise nature of Giza-Orion Correlation Theory, because this theory is not about dating the pyramids. However, this work does lend indirect support to the Giza-Orion Correlation Theory in giving increased credibility to the idea of inferring dates from astronomical alignments (an idea with Kate Spence helped "dismiss" on Horizon's Atlantis Reborn documentary).

Regards,
Sharif

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Spence and Precession 373 Andy 16-Nov-00 17:53
RE: Spence and Precession 148 Sharif 16-Nov-00 18:23
RE: Spence and Precession 163 Andy 16-Nov-00 19:16
RE: Spence and Precession 162 Sharif 16-Nov-00 22:15
RE: Spence and Precession 184 Andy 16-Nov-00 19:22
RE: Spence and Precession 154 Sharif 17-Nov-00 00:06
RE: Spence and Precession 175 Andy 17-Nov-00 01:19
RE: Spence and Precession 172 Dr Winston O'Boogie 17-Nov-00 11:27
RE: Spence and Precession 331 Graham Hancock 17-Nov-00 11:51
RE: Spence and Precession 145 Dr Winston O'Boogie 17-Nov-00 12:20
RE: Spence and Precession 233 Graham Hancock 17-Nov-00 14:29
RE: Spence and Precession 178 Sharif 17-Nov-00 12:02
RE: Spence and Precession 149 Dr Winston O'Boogie 17-Nov-00 12:29
RE: Spence and Precession 184 John Lennon 22-Nov-00 15:32
RE: Spence and Precession 145 jameske 17-Nov-00 12:34
RE: Spence and Precession 174 Sri Kowta 17-Nov-00 15:00


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.