Poster Boy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two further questions, Avry
>
> In your opinion, and independently of all other
> considerations, do you find a 179-foot error to be
> outside the realm of archeological persuasion,
> that the AEs intended the belt star alignment?
>
> How about your 43-footer?


I would say neither is outside to convey intention. However, I very carefully tender this with context of the relevance of the match points. Without context, it is just measuring 3 points to 3 points, an act of which in and of itself doesn't prove the level of intent.


> As for the first, I would now say no. However,
> when we take into account proportion,
> juxtaposition and all, I remain a firm yes.

In both cases, the counterpoint of 'necessary' accuracy is completely removed by the idea of naked-eye observation of the Belt Stars, i.e. translating it from eye to paper, then expanding it to the size of the Giza plateau, which, mind you, is no flat pancake. :) In other words, if it isn't perfect to 1 foot, there is good reason why that might be.

However ...

The accuracy alone is not the benchmark on which to build an argument of intent. Context matters to the nth degree, and Rob has his ideas, I have mine. Nonetheless, neither of us (or anyone with any theory) is any closer to what really happened unless something substantive is dug up from the time, i.e. the original blueprints.

Best,
Avry