Contrary to Robert Bauval's correlation involving an alleged misplacement of G3 in relation to Mintaka, Scott's  'geo' and 'stellar' components produce an orientation discrepancy of some 15 degrees in relation to one another (no bearing on the N-S inversion debate).

To realize this, one merely need to acknowledge the existence of the whole sky and adhere to associated topographical orientation.

Question to consider is whether placing of the belt asterism in this out of kilter manner, or RB's which abides by cardinals, is supported by intent and what such could be?

The superimposed Giza/Orion image indicates geographic North but neglects to show the accompanying celestial orientation.  Applied, as per Scott's 'geo-stellar print' whereby he produces the three pyramid bases,* it will reveal this out of kilter discrepancy between sky and Earth. 

Should the North indicator on the image be intended to infer a mutual meridian, with dual application for both topographies, it places the belt asterism in isolation and for that matter, out of kilter with its own.. greater (& oriented) stellar surroundings.. (again, this has no bearing on the N-S question, which he yet has to address and of course, we are in agreement that the sky precesses as a whole).

Not opposed to the correlation concept but interested to comprehend the mechanics of such a distortion, or how to have it both ways, so to speak.

footnote *
considering the implications of placing (& orientating) each pyramid on an individual.. meridian, by employing one diagonal in conjunction with non parallel others, termed 'the inter quarter lines', I am pleased he no longer refers to it as "elegant" :-D