|
Robert
ORION CORRELATION THEORY
Given the renewed interest in your Orion
Correlation theory, and the fact that I have considerably fleshed out my
counter-arguments particularly in relation to the replanning objection,
perhaps you would care to respond to the contents of my recent paper? I
have had stimulating private correspondence with a number of researchers
who remain "open-minded" about the theory, but none have yet come up with
anything to make me seriously reconsider my position. As the main author
of the theory, and since you are still defending it to the hilt, I think
most reasonable observers would expect you to take the issues on board and
argue constructively against them.
SPENCE'S ORIENTATION THEORY
Turning to Kate Spence's work, I can quite
understand it if you feel aggrieved that she has in part plagiarised your
work, and do not blame you for publicising this fact. However, since you
have made it clear that the crux of her theory is completely new, and
since it has clear implications for the AE's knowledge of precession in
general, and therefore for the 10,500 BC dating aspect of your Orion
Correlation theory in particular, should you not also invest some time in
constructively rebutting these new aspects of her theory? Many people will
perhaps be confused by your current stance, which is to claim credit for
the "dual-star orientation" method that, as applied by Spence, invalidates
your own pet theory.
THE SHAFTS
I stand by the assertion in G:TT, repeated
in my paper on Spence's work, that your attempt to date the Great Pyramid
by the supposed alignments of the "star" shafts is deeply flawed. In
particular, since I still favour a symbolic interpretation for the shafts
until further exploration of the QC shafts in conducted, and am clearly in
agreement with an orthodox date for the monument, for you to suggest that
I am somehow being "dishonest and misleading" (your EN Talk posting of 22
Nov) in pointing out that the shafts have huge deviations is, frankly, a
travesty. What possible justification could I have for lying about a
theory that only shores up arguments with which I am already mostly in
agreement? My motives in continuing to labour this point are exactly that
you and many other researchers continue to mislead the public about
important details.
Yes, the KC shafts are pretty straight in
their angle from the horizontal, and they both deviate laterally by a
small amount in order that they exit in the centre of the edifice, having
started off-centre in the chamber. The only problem with these is the
initial westward deviation of the northern shaft, a subject to which I
will return shortly. In any case, this "relative straightness" of the KC
shafts was what led so many even orthodox Egyptologists to accept a
stellar-based symbolic function. Turning to the QC southern shaft, yes, it
does pretty much the same thing as its KC counterpart, although we still
don't know why it stops as it does - in my view the best bet still being
replanning from the QC to the KC, despite the enigmatic "handles" and use
of Turah limestone near the end.
But everyone should have it drummed into
them that the major reason for doubt about their purpose is the trajectory
of the northern QC shaft. First off, the deviation in its angle from the
horizontal is as much as 7 degrees. Second, and even more damning, unlike
its KC counterpart it does not deviate laterally at all for the first 40
or so feet, which takes it well into potential Grand Gallery territory but
it still misses it and so has no need to deviate. But then it veers off in
a north-westerly direction, and none of us know what happens thereafter.
Meanwhile the northern KC shaft deviates west early on and then
straightens back up, but, yet again, it has no obvious reason to do this:
the Grand Gallery is, yet again, not in the way. Rudolf Gantenbrink and I
have both prepared scale drawings of the chambers and shafts as viewed
from above which clearly demonstrate this point (mine is in G:TT, Figure
27, if you have a copy).
The upshot of all this is that at least one
shaft does deviate massively, and noone knows where or how it ends up. And
if the many Egyptologists who commented on the shafts before Upuaut
investigated those emerging from the QC had known about this, they too
would probably have reserved judgement. My main point is that it only
takes problems with one of the four shafts to throw our interpretation of
the function of the other three into total confusion. Until the northern
QC shaft is properly investigated along its entire length, anyone who
suggests categorically that the function of the shafts is related to
stellar alignments is deluding themselves and the public. If, worse than
that, they then attempt to accurately use these supposed alignments to
date the edifice, they are even more guilty of manipulating the available
data.
You suggest that Ed Krupp supports the
stellar alignment theory for the shafts. What you fail to mention is that
he is far from impressed by your attempts to use them for dating. As we
quote in G:TT (p. 355):
I certainly don't take
seriously these precessional discrepancies of a few centuries in the
agreement of star alignments with the shaft orientations. There are many
reasonable sources of error here - date of construction, date of design,
Egyptian astronomical calculation, construction accuracy, intended
alignment targets, and so forth, to accommodate the 'errors' cited. I
actually get the feeling that no one in this business, except Badawy
(deceased) and Trimble, know the first thing about error analysis.
As to whether the other astronomers that you
mention are aware of the true trajectories of all the shafts and have
factored them into their opinions, I cannot say for sure, but somehow I
doubt it. I have spent some considerable time describing these intricacies
because, in my view, the shafts remain one of the few serious enigmas left
to be properly explained about the Great Pyramid. It does nobody any good
to be lulled into a fall sense of security that their purpose is fully
rationalised, especially by someone who has a vested interest in
supporting the stellar alignment theory, and in particular for the
southern KC shaft which is supposed to point at... that's right, good 'ol
Orion's Belt!
To finally clarify my position on this, I
continue to support the idea that the shafts had a symbolic function,
possibly - but not definitely - related to stellar philosophical concepts.
However even this would not necessarily imply that they actually "align"
with particular stars, and, even if they do, this alignment is clearly not
sufficiently accurate that it can be used as a dating mechanism. By
contrast, the cardinal alignments clearly were intended to be highly
accurate, which is what provides Spence's theory with a totally different
order of potential validity.
I look forward to your response
Regards, Ian
PS In line with my opening observations and
usual practice, I will be reproducing this email on the G:TT Discussion
Site, and would expect, although of course only with your permission, to
be able to do the same with any constructive reply you may provide. I am
quite happy to continue any discussions via Chris' clearly popular forum,
but I do think it vital that they are also preserved elsewhere to ensure
that important debate does not get lost in the mists of the web as time
moves on...
[The following is the diagram to which I
refer above, reproduced from G:TT, Figure 27]
THE KING'S AND QUEEN'S
CHAMBER SHAFTS VIEWED FROM ABOVE
(prepared with the kind assistance of Rudolf
Gantenbrink) |
