Author of the Month :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world.

Re: "...its difficult for me to consider them a coincidence due to incorrect (I mean to a large degree) calculation on the part of SN."

--I don't follow what you mean. The different passageway measures you quote span a range of 0.38 degrees. My difference with Starry Night's obliquity calculation circa 12,000 BC is less than 0.3 degrees. Also as I explained in another post, the shaft itself has an angular spread greater than that.

Re: "Using my theory I find a descending passageway alignment with SN of 26.417°."

--That is unclear what you are referring to. Do you mean that your theory, employing Starry Night calculations of a star declination, predicts the shaft under the Pyramid should have an angle of 26.417 degrees? And because that is close to the quoted shaft angles you think Starry Night values must be exact without error? What if Starry Night corrected their calculations (as they have in the past) by some small amount, say 0.2 degrees? Are you indicating that would prove your theory false?

And that said, I caution against any theories that depend on such extreme accuracy at such extremely ancient dates. Whether my method (Berger, 1976), or whatever calculation method Starry Night uses, there is still going to be a standard error range, which we haven't even talked about yet, and which may be significant. Look at the standard error in the Delta T calculation that Starry Night uses, from NASA, it only goes back to 500 BC and the standard error in that is getting increasingly large at that time. As I noted, of the monument-star comparisons of that extremely ancient epoch, that I quote in Black Genesis, this Vega-to-Shaft calculation is the only one that could be significantly affected by an error of 0.3 degrees or less, and in Black Genesis I noted caution about the value.

Anyhow, it wouldn't hurt to chime into Starry Night's blog and ask them to reference their calculation for Earth's pole. If they think that their users are starting to think their calculations might be bogus, they will have incentive to publish their calculation method for Earth's pole. (As they recently published, and corrected, their calculation method for Delta T which is Earth's spin rate.)

--I don't follow what you mean. The different passageway measures you quote span a range of 0.38 degrees. My difference with Starry Night's obliquity calculation circa 12,000 BC is less than 0.3 degrees. Also as I explained in another post, the shaft itself has an angular spread greater than that.

Re: "Using my theory I find a descending passageway alignment with SN of 26.417°."

--That is unclear what you are referring to. Do you mean that your theory, employing Starry Night calculations of a star declination, predicts the shaft under the Pyramid should have an angle of 26.417 degrees? And because that is close to the quoted shaft angles you think Starry Night values must be exact without error? What if Starry Night corrected their calculations (as they have in the past) by some small amount, say 0.2 degrees? Are you indicating that would prove your theory false?

And that said, I caution against any theories that depend on such extreme accuracy at such extremely ancient dates. Whether my method (Berger, 1976), or whatever calculation method Starry Night uses, there is still going to be a standard error range, which we haven't even talked about yet, and which may be significant. Look at the standard error in the Delta T calculation that Starry Night uses, from NASA, it only goes back to 500 BC and the standard error in that is getting increasingly large at that time. As I noted, of the monument-star comparisons of that extremely ancient epoch, that I quote in Black Genesis, this Vega-to-Shaft calculation is the only one that could be significantly affected by an error of 0.3 degrees or less, and in Black Genesis I noted caution about the value.

Anyhow, it wouldn't hurt to chime into Starry Night's blog and ask them to reference their calculation for Earth's pole. If they think that their users are starting to think their calculations might be bogus, they will have incentive to publish their calculation method for Earth's pole. (As they recently published, and corrected, their calculation method for Delta T which is Earth's spin rate.)

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.