Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I were to quote someone, however, I would start
> with Rudolph Gatenbrink in response to the
> question of "are they light or star shafts":

Quote

No! All the shafts bend, often several times. In addition, all the shafts begin, at their lower ends, with horizontal sections about 2 meters in length. So there is no way light from any source could ever have penetrated from the outside into either of the chambers. In several parts of the shafts, with the exception of the lower southern one, we even found extreme angle fluctuations. It is therefore ridiculous for anyone to claim that the shafts could ever have pointed precisely to certain stars. Given the many angle fluctuations, the shafts could be construed to be pointing at some 100 different stars, especially if construction of the pyramid is gratuitously redated to match specific stellar constellations.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

To follow up with this, astronomically, the idea these shafts all line up with these specific stars c. 2450BC is simply not true. While at various times they may point in the "direction" of these stars, there is never any such "lock" that places them in conjunction with each other at a particular time +/- in which the closest points these shafts could be fixed to even make this idea tenable in reality are over 150yrs apart. Bauval originally gave dates of only 3 of the shafts which are KC north 2425BC, KC south 2475BC, and QC south 2400BC which each of those dates are rounded up or down at his discretion. Ironically the average is actually 2433BC which he merely rounds up again to arrive at 2450BC. Bauval's figures have repeatedly been shown to be incorrect in which he has offered several revisions time and again to make it work which in the view of many is still wrong. And for all of this to happen in the first place it was supposedly laid out in 10,500BC yet constructed in 2450BC? Which as I understand it even the 10,500BC correlation is wrong.

Regarding Thuban, according to Bauval it is supposedly meant to line up with one of the KC shafts:


And yet it can supposedly be seen in the DP at this same time as well? Forgive my ignorance, but I'm afraid I don't see how both are possible unless the DP and shaft were built at much different times, obviously a lot longer than the accepted period of construction. Or, Bauval significantly fugded the numbers to make it fit which if I am not mistaken this particular number he rounded down by 26yrs to get to 2475BC. According to Proctor, Thuban would have only been visible within the DP in the eras of either 3350BC or 2170BC +/- 50-200yrs yet somehow he was off by several hundred years?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 20-Feb-17 23:50 by Thanos5150.