Excuse me, but you came at me first with that "attitude"....if you have something to say then say it and don't give me a canned cut and paste of a ridiculous rebuttal you never cared to check yourself. I hope you're not trying to tell me you just adopted that rebuttal as your own opinion without checking it, right? Here is what you should have done:


1- I note you cannot produce the altitudes of Thuban in the year 2450 B.C....I am not surprised. When you finally get around to actually verifying this for yourself, you will see that even this sample view frame (Menkaure) would show it if it pointed to 26.50. The figures are 28 09' and 31. Both of these are well within view of the descending passage even if you actually descend quite some ways into it, which is not even the point. The point is the D.P. is some , what, 20 (?) times larger than the half-cubit shafts which means there is a lot more of a view field around the north star.

2-The fact that the queen shafts are closed off is completely irrelevant to the liturgical meaning here. The king's soul was not going towards either Horus or Kochab. It was going towards "Rostau" for resurrection which is the core of the Osiris/Orion and from there to the imperishable star zone, which is Thuban...(king shaft north). Your "rebuttal" shows zero knowledge of Egyptian religion and an utter ignorance of the actual meaning behind the star alignment theory by Bauval. So much for a thoughtful counter.

3- The fact that the shafts are bent is also completely irrelevant, because what matters are where the shafts surfaced (remarkably close to each other it turns out) and in what direction they opened.

So what you copied and pasted there from your own post is a triplet of straw men.

I suggest you formulate your own prose next time and not dish up the warmed up opinion of someone who didn't think this through with any kind of care.. And please....stop referring me to your own old posts. Use your keyboard!



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 20-Feb-17 05:10 by Manu.