> The OCT 'scandal' issue is indeed old news.
> However, the sensationalism of the topic demands
> clarification regarding its misgivings. It is
> furthermore essential that the function,
> dynamics & intent of an actual,
> f-giza]veritable pyramid-star correlation[/url] be
> from the opening post:
> 176492,1176492#msg-1176492]To achieve this
> concordance the pyramids have been rotated and
> scaled to suit.[/url]"
> 176492,1176510#msg-1176510]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
> note: 'fudged' not the word used by Dr.Krupp for
> First off, "a low rent Wiki smear campaign" is a
> false impression. Also, 'mirroring' never came
> into the phrasing - that's a Creighton concoction
> (inverting the Belt slant and falsely accusing
> Krupp of doing so). The [i]only[/i] means by which
> a [b]side-by-side comparison[/b] of terrestrial &
> celestial topography [i]can[/i] be facilitated
> [i]neccessitates an inversion of polarity[/i]
> (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
> 8067,318067#msg-318067]Astronomical Integrity at
> Giza[/url], is valid and Scott's comment inserts
> can be discarded with impunity.
> I have explained
> 8067,318124#msg-318124]the fundamentals[/url]
> concerning a 'swung down' map, which Scott
> evidently, cannot grasp. He ought to, perhaps then
> the penny will drop regarding his methodically
> flawed 'Geo-stellar-fingerprinting' of Orion's
> Belt and how such contradicts... his '16 pyramid
> Osiris figure' in terrestrial portrayal. Showing
> lack of reason in this regard, the Giza group
> -i.e. the Belt, which regardless of the fact that
> it is inseperably integral to the
> humanoid/god/constellation stellar-figure,
> [i]independently[/i] adopt [i]cardinal[/i] N-S
> [i]orientation reversal[/i], whereby his two ideas
> effectively conflict one another! (recalling the
> essence of his objections wrt astronomer Dr. E.
> Krupp's observations :-). Despite being
> [i]diametrically opposed[/i], in terms of
> directional principle, Creighton's abberations, no
> less demand, simultaneous presence in a solo
> topographical dimension :o) a case of debunking
> oneself in the foot, LOL!
Yes, scaling is necessary to convert astronomical observational distances onto actual pyramid distances. But what if no scaling is necessary to convert stars to mountains, where the mountains are scaled down to design the pyramids.
The fact is that the observational distance between Alnitak and Alnilam when projected onto the Earth relates to distances in Greece that are part of the great Giza plan. You cannot discard one theory because it uses scaling and not acknowledge the validity of another one that does not need scaling. You can't have it both ways. The orientation is another issue which I have a solution for.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 29-Jun-19 15:19 by Spiros.