Not clouded at all. That's the point. I see clearly, and both Scott and I expected this from you. In your post to me you were referring to the Orion Correlation Theory - saying that the Giza pyramids do not line up with the Orion belt stars, or were not intended to.
And I will say again, the reason why I say the Orion correlation is the only correct scenario - as you put it - is based purely on logic, and it appears that your failure to see the logical sense in this is overclouded by the importance of your own theories, which I for one, have always taken an interest in.
The way the three pyramid bases are shown to have been derived from the positions of the three belt stars is simple Don . . . Simple.
Scott also showed that if you were to cut three carboard squares and drop them on the floor - you would be dropping all three for eternity to finally create, and exactly, the same pattern as we see on the Giza plateau, which again, Scott has shown is the same as the positions of the Orion belt stars. Again, I had discussed this with Scott, and Scott said he had worked out the odds for this being something in the trillions. Also, there is the addition of the Queens' pyramids that are also associated with the two max and min culmination points of the belt stars in the precessional cycle - (See Scott's presentation - the Precession of the Queens). So I now stand convinced.
And as I said, as for the 'Curious Case of Pi at Giza', I have come to similar conclusions . . . what can I say? It appears there are always going to be mysteries about Giza that remain to be answered and there's room enough for everyone to make their own discoveries and state their case and I don't see the point in attacking anyone else's theories. Why should I feel the need to? I'm quite comfortable with what Scott and I am presenting and what we both stand by.
Post Edited (02-Feb-12 19:00)