The image I provided has its longitude scale based upon the measure between the axes of the King and Queen chambers being 10deg, so too with the astronomical overlays to pyramid, where Mercator Projection is used for the latitude. That kind of projection isn't difficult if the ability to map the stars is done upon the reflection of them in water, rather than looking up at them in the sky: being an exact height and distance from the surface means stars are tracked and recreated as 2 dimensional and flat, and 'Mercator Projection' is found way before Mercator projected it. The southern meridian is the central axis of the pyramid and north is spread out to both sides; the horizon as seen from Giza is the join between the 20/21st courses, passing right at the base of the valley between the two mounds in the glyph above the entrance...the same horizon of the astronomical overlays align to that join...it isn't hard to recreate,let alone conceive of when the right process is found.
But, back to your article and my observations...I hope my explanation above is sufficient to go a bit more forward.
Denis' cave is where a hermit lived, having gone there after being born and growing up elsewhere. The Denisovan/s also went there after being born elsewhere and ending up there...they ended up in all manner of places, didn't they, from Australia to the Siberian area, and yet they have left DNA here and there but not right in the area of the cave...no DNA is found in the peoples of even Lake Baikal even 20,000 years after the Denisovan/s were there. Well, Polynesians have Denisovan DNA and they only came about some 5,000 years ago, but Australian Aborigines are some 70,000+ years old (ask some of them and they say 120,000...that's how the stars turn and offer up lengthy cycles that can be remembered, especially how many times certain stars that rise in the east have 'risen' in the west, as though the world had flipped over a few times...well, that's just Precession working)
Do Egyptians have Denisovan DNA? Who else has it? Who doesn't have it but should? And why don't even the locals near the cave have it?
You have Cygnus as the important connection of a few things which has its insurmountable reflection in the layout of the Giza pyramids...that's a wonderful recreation that strips Orion's belt stars of their importance...everyone else looks at the belt stars and you went for Cygnus based upon, well, something that caught your eye and presented itself after so much investigation into various sources of information and connected some dots that keeps offering more dots, hence more books.
The last time you and I interacted was over a circle that had the pyramids on its edge and how large the circle was, and I gave you my findings after having done that several months before...and you said I was the closest folk had come to to Rodney Hale's findings. We differed by a little bit which means either he or I was correct...which means I was incorrect, correct? I certainly wouldn't want to argue over who is right or wrong over the approaches each of us took to get our answers...I just used SketchUp and Petrie's survey results. I'm certainly not going to argue whether Orion's belt stars or the stars of Cygnus are the plan of the Giza pyramids...that doesn't concern me. I won't argue how old the Denisovan artifacts are in the cave, nor why we haven't found any others anywhere except as DNA in peoples in different locations from different time periods. All I will show is a simple image of the pyramid overlaid to Earth which is solid in its presentation...not contrived, not 'pushed to fit', not mistaken at all...well, the corners and height might be out by a very little bit depending on which side-length is used...
The translation of that image kinda says: we originated in the Middle East and central Africa, and spread through Africa to go to South America via strong pathways. We went south too, below Africa. We put solid foundations near Lake Titicaca and northern Australia, and had our apex near the Spitsbergen island. We also spread out direct descendants to four locations: Denisovan Cave area; Mt Kailash area; and two places beyond the Gibraltar Straits. We have 5 solid layers of history above us in both our maternal and paternal lineages. We traveled the world and new it intimately, and expertly mapped the stars. And we left some notes about all this...that someone kept safe until Khufu built his pyramid.
It isn't whether Khufu knew what he built or not...just that there was something to use that had lasted until his time...just like there are all kinds of little artifacts found that can be used to recreate a piece of history out of the ground they are found in, or the sky they mimic.
Is any one of us correct in how we present our findings? All depends on what the basis/foundations for our presentation actually is...I published much of my analysis on-line in early 2014 and look at stuff I built it on with new eyes and see solid evidence for it being correct. I could write a book about it and all this solid stuff and then publish that, but would that make it any more valid? No...would publishing several books about it make me valid? No...
Folk keep wondering about the origins of a highly knowledgeable and capable people who have myths about them in many cultures, and relics and DNA in very few locations...and the Denisovans are supposed to be those people...well, one or a few of them anyway...those who ended up isolated in a cave.
You're author of the month and I'm just having a chat with you and offering a view to take your stuff a little further, like I have done with several authors before you, David Anderson and his Chinese discs and David Mathisen and Painted Rock for instance where they have a new appreciation for their interests and another book each to write after doing a little more focused research to verify some things. Where do any of us get our knowledge from...and what do we come across that makes us think in a slightly different way compared to those who have thought about the same things before? Why is it that our thing is of interest to another? And will they buy another book about it when it has more details?
I'm always learning new things and refining old things...I accept what I currently think is the tip of an iceberg and will always learn something else to get to the bottom of the iceberg...that's why I read other authors and ponder what they present from what they have found. It helps me think in a different way.
Thank you for your time. I wonder if you have another book in you, or has everything you set out to find come to an end?