RAW: Thanks. I did not say your plan drawing was wrong.
SC: Good. Then we can accept that the plan drawing I used isn't wrong. In which case your suggestion that I check my findings with satellite imagery is unnecessary.
RAW: What you represent on it is.
SC: No, what I represent on the plan drawing is not wrong. The clear geometric relationship between the Gizamids is plainly evident and is what it is and - evidently - you can see this relationship in my drawings (otherwise you wouldn't actually be commenting on it and insisting it's "wrong").
You have the ground plan I used, Avry. You accept it isn't wrong. So, try it for yourself. What you will find Avry is that when you place G2 centre on Al Nilam centre (with G1-G3 Belt fulcrum) G2 now fits very well onto the 'Lenher-Goedicke Line' and also slots very well into my 2 inter-quarter lines. You will further find, Avry, that G3 (which is very slightly longer on its N-S axis) will have its corners and mid-points very slightly offset either side of my 2 inter-quarter lines. This is to be expected and comes as a consequence of the underlying design method which creates G1 and G2 as near perfect squares whilst creating G3 as a slight rectangle (on its N-S axis).
There is more, Avry, much more to the Giza-Orion correlation than you are perhaps willing to consider. You may not think the 'classic' OCT requires further "support" and you are content with the way things are, that everything that needs to be discovered in this context has been discovered. Well, personally, I find such an approach frankly bewildering. You protest that the two sets of queens "... show nothing of an accurate rep of the Belt..." - well if the context is that the three main Gizamids are symbolic of the Belt Stars what on earth do you think two triads of much smaller pyramids might represent? Context, context, context. Even Bauval himself made the observation of the G3 Queens locking into the 10,500 BC date (minimum culmination) and said something to the effect (I paraphrase) that these 3 queens served as miniature models of the main pyramids. Alas, he failed to observe the G1 queens mimicking the maximum culmination of the Belt stars and how these 2 culminations were (theoretically) connected via the Lehner-Goedicke line. In short, if it's okay for Bauval to accept the G3 queens as miniature models of the main Gizamids depicting their minimum culmination, then you can be certain I won't be taking any lectures from you telling me otherwise with regards to those or G1 queens depicting the Belt's maximum culmination.
There's more to be discovered here at Giza, Avry. But it rather seems to me that you're quite content to bury your head in the sand.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21-Jan-19 10:47 by Scott Creighton.