from the opening post:
"To achieve this concordance the pyramids have been rotated and scaled to suit."
"Edwin Krupp argued that Bauval had (fudged) the maps of Orion and the Pyramids by placing them upside down in terms of stellar directionality to make the theory work."
note: 'fudged' not phrasing used by Dr.Krupp.
First off, "a low rent Wiki smear campaign" is a false impression. Also, 'mirroring' (inverting the Belt slant) is a Creighton concoction, not Krupp's doing. The only means by which a side-by-side comparison of terrestrial & celestial topography can be facilitated neccessitates an inversion of polarity (merely a temporary application at that, employed to demonstrate the likeness between two seperate components - each complete in resemblance of the other and retaining true orientation, respective their individual topographies). Krupp's commentary, Astronomical Integrity at Giza, is valid and Scott's comment inserts can be discarded with impunity.
I have explained the fundamentals concerning a 'swung down' map, which Scott evidently, cannot grasp. He ought to, perhaps then the penny will drop regarding how his methodically flawed 'Geo-stellar-fingerprinting' of Orion's Belt contradicts... portrayal of his '16 pyramid Osiris-figure'. Showing lack of reason, the Giza group, i.e. the Belt asterim, which regardless of the fact that it is inseperably integral to the stellar constellation-figure, not only adopts the function of HeadDress (Atef Crown) to the terrestrial deity-figure... it, no less, also implies N-S orientation reversal, whereby his two ideas cardinally conflict one another! (recalling the essence of his objections wrt astronomer Dr. E. Krupp :-) Despite being diametrically opposed, in terms of directional principle, Creighton's abberations, somehow, are requiring of simultaneous presence in a solo topographical dimension :o) a case of debunking oneself in the foot, LOL!
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11-Jul-19 09:51 by hendrik dirker.