OFF: Re: Pyramids

[Gordon Hundley]

Jill Strobridge replied:

> Actually it's a pity we can't involve Ron Tree in this!  Listening to
> his TV interview on that recent programme I think he'd have a
> considerable input of opinion to offer us......

I'm afraid I haven't seen the interview. Thinking back to Ron Bastard
down at the Royal Park pub in Leeds though, I think that this might be
the case. :)

> yes - but the sheer number of "bright celestial objects" in the night
> sky and the huge time-scale he is operating with leaves me still
> uncertain on this.

Sure, if you were to try and use astronomical evidence alone, you'd find
that the conditions would be the same at 36500BC (due to precession).
This would clearly be even more unacceptable to conventional wisdom.
However, the real point is that it isn't just astronomical evidence that
has been presented, but also reasonable interpretations of a number of
otherwise puzzling heiroglyphic texts.

> Do you need timekeeping?   Wouldn't ground measurement and local
> observation be sufficient?

Over the distances involved, probably not, through they would of course
need significantly advanced astronomical knowledge capable of
understanding precession, and highly advanced mathematics. It goes
without saying that their engineering was also unbeleivably advanced. We
still have very little idea how pyramids were made and all modern
attempts at building using such large stones have failed.

> Yeah I guess we differ here - I'll stick with the Occam's Razor type
> belief that there's no need for a higher knowledge if something can be
> constructed by normal everyday folk with normal everyday intelligence.
> And if we don't know *why* the stuff was built then it's no more
> strange than folk 7000 years from now wondering why there are so many
> different types of churches or what the strange pyramid shape at
> Glastonbury with all its flashing lights was for  8-)

I'm a very firm beleiver in using the Occam's Razor type of approach. The
situation is that the mysteries of the pyramids provide a huge number of
unanswered questions. Most of the ideas that pre-date Bauval are
unsatisfactory because they require leaps of faith or literal
interpretation of select texts. There are better corelations of too many
texts and archaeological evidence when these recent theories are applied.
Others have even come by similar theories and times without doing the
astronomical research. In many ways Bauval is just adding weight to
already posited theories.

> Interesting - which maps are these?

>From Hancock's book 'Fingerprints of the Gods'. These are the Piri Reis
maps, drawn by an Ottoman explorer in 1513, in which he cites older maps
from the library at Constantinople. These were examinded in 1960 by the
USAF recon (SAC) who concluded, as Prof. Hopwood, who had submitted them
had, that Antartica as shown represented the land mass of Queen Maud's
Land *before it was buried under 2 miles of ice*. The most recent this
could have been mapped would have been in 6000BC according to our
knowledge of the ice cap. Other, similarly aged maps also show similar
longitudinal understanding that wasn't rediscovered until John Harrison
won the Board of Longitude's £20,000 prize by delivering a working
chronometer in 1761.

Gordon.