> Ed Krupp is one such astronomer who has falsified
> the OCT.
> With respect to your request for a citation of any
> "key advocate of the OCT" theory claiming a
> "perfect match", I knew that I had it somewhere,
> and here it is.
> It seems, according to the citation Jason Colavito
> credits Bauval himself as having written as early
> as 1994 that there is an "uncanny precision"
> between the Gizamids and the belt stars.
> Colavito's use of quotation marks suggest he is
> quoting Bauval directly.
> You can read it for yourself here:
> where Colavito writes:
Bauval, writing in 1994, had argued that
> “the pattern of Orion's Belt seen on the 'west'
> of the Milky Way matches, with uncanny precision,
> the pattern and alignments of the three Giza
> Will that do?
No, it won't.
You used quotes, Matt, saying that a principal of the OCT said "perfect match," literally. Uncanny precision does not equal perfect match, and you know it.
Bauval is much, much to smart to make such a ridiculously untrue statement.
You wrote this: "With respect to the Orion Correlation Theory, an American astronomer challenged the authors' claims and using planetarium measurements demonstrated that the calculations were inaccurate and not a "perfect match" as touted.". Shame on you for such flagrant misrepresentation, Matt.
Krupp didn't falsify anything. He made an absurdly partisan statement on the Orion alignment, which was played up at the expense of Bauval and Hancock, in the BBC Horizon show from ca2000. In effect, the Horizon people were given both sides of the story, prior to airing, and they chose to only present Krupp's. For this, the Horizon people were called out for being unfair which, according to Hancock at the time, was unprecedented in the show's 35 years. [grahamhancock.com]
Krupp's partisanship notwithstanding, here's a comment from Independent
"Horizon, the BBC flagship science programme, is to be criticised for the first time by the Broadcasting Standards Commission for being unfair to two authors who believe the world was once dominated by a "lost civilisation".[www.independent.co.uk]
Ever since then, Krupp's minions at Wikipedia and other psuedo-scientific portals have been trying to cover this poor man's ass by misdirection over this utterly bogus point. For what he said about Orion being inverted, relative the Pyramids, he has become a laughing stock among serious investigators of the OCT, including those who accept the OCT and those who reject. This is not falsification by any sense, and it has nothing to do with the Sphinx alignment, in case you didn't know.
We should expect nothing less of the dirt bags who work behind the scenes at Wikipedia, who make it their business to slander at every opportunity, and whose principals probably run RationalWiki and hide behind pseudonyms. They go out of their way to misrepresent, as Horizon did, and as you just proved you are perfectly willing to by continuing to say that "uncanny precision" is equal "perfect match."
Here's how Wikipedia leads with Graham Hancock's page:
"Hancock specialises in pseudoscientific theories involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths, and astronomical or astrological data from the past.One theme of his works proposes a connection with a 'mother culture' from which he believes other ancient civilisations sprang. An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals."
And here's what they lead with re Edwin Krupp, one of Wikipedia's many Skeptical Inquirer contributors.
"Edwin Charles Krupp (born November 18, 1944) is an American astronomer, researcher, author, and popularizer of science. He is also known as Ed or E.C. He is an internationally recognized expert in the field of archaeoastronomy, the study of how ancient cultures viewed the sky and how those views affected their cultures. He has taught at the college level, as a planetarium lecturer, and in various documentary films. He has been the director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles since first taking over the position in 1974 after the departure of the previous director, William J. Kaufmann III. His writings include science papers and journal articles, astronomy magazine articles, books on astronomy and archaeoastronomy for adults, and books explaining sky phenomena and astronomy to children.
No surprise then, that Krupp "is also a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and a member of that organization's Council for Media Integrity." Most of the ones who are quoted on Wikipedia in contexts like this are just that. On closer examination, these 'scholars' often prove to be as inept and partisan as Krupp is on your so-called OCT falsification, and as you are, a presumably educated person who has the gall, when called out, to continue to suggest that 'uncanny precision' equals 'perfect match'.
You showed your true colours, Matt...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22-May-19 18:42 by Poster Boy.