Does it Line Up?
That last point is interesting -- "It's exactly the image that you have on the ground with the pyramids." He then went on to agree with the statement that the
alignment is perfect.
In this day and age, it's really
not hard to test this. It took me two minutes with planetarium software, Google Earth, and Photoshop. I'll have my collage posted on the shownotes for the episode.
What I did was I went into Starry Night Pro, though you can use any astronomy software or any of the photographs online of Orion's belt, and I took a screenshot of the belt region. I then went to Google and found the Giza pyramids, and I took a screenshot. I then brought both of them into Photoshop.
In order to align the two largest pyramids with the two brightest belt stars,
I had to rotate the pyramids by 151° counter-clockwise. This is interesting because it's also something that is
never mentioned by Bauval, and in fact his work has gotten a fair amount of criticism because it leaves this point out - that the pattern is almost the exact
OPPOSITE of what you see in the belt stars rather than it being
identical.
So I
lined up the two large pyramids with Alnitak and Alnilam, and I found that Mintaka
didn't fit. Mintaka was both
too far - as in
the smaller pyramid would need to be moved by a
few hundred meters - and it was at the
wrong angle. Yeah, it was kinda sorta close, but it was FAR from exact.
I then thought it might be an issue with the perspective since the imagery that Google currently has on its maps site is from an airplane or something closer to the ground rather than a satellite. You can tell this because it's a perspective because the lines of the edges do not form a nice cross. So I looked around and found a real satellite image from nearly directly overhead, did the same thing, and Mintaka was
off again.
You might be thinking, "Well, doesn't close count?" My answer would normally be "yes," but in this case, it's "no," for three reasons.
First Bauval stated that the alignment was
exact. It is
not. If he were a
legitimate researcher he would have said the alignment is
very close but there is some
small offset. Saying it is exact is easily demonstrably wrong.
Second, on Bauval's website, he rants against someone on a BBC program who called him out on this. He says that the third belt star is within 5° as opposed to being exact, and, quote: "Even were it feasible to get an accuracy of less than +/- 5 degrees, this is really academic, for visually such a variation is almost impossible to discern for the small apparent length as Orion's belt as it appears to the naked eye."
This bleeds into the third reason I reject the argument that "close counts:" The ancient Egyptians were much better surveyors than to be off by 5°. They were able to align the pyramids to within 3 minutes of true North-South, which is 3/60ths of a degree. For them to be that accurate with the walls of the pyramids but then to be literally 100x less accurate for the very basic placement of the pyramids is something that I, personally, find much more difficult to believe.
повеќе;
http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_034.php
... ако сте за гледање/слушање еве документарката;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAucfmNvUd0
Што заклучивме ? Пак тешки манипулации. Затоа
тука го прават партали на батката кој ја дава оваа теорија.
ZOTE got busted... AGAIN![DOUBLEPOST=1432810037][/DOUBLEPOST]
@ISUS-NIKA сега кој од вас е Атанас Пчеларски?
Или двајцата сте уствари тројца?[DOUBLEPOST=1432810190][/DOUBLEPOST]
The constellation
Orion as
it can be seen by the naked eye (image enhanced with lines and text)
The constellation
Orion is one of the
most recognizable in the night sky.
Протитај само колку е тешко да се види Орион;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)
П.С. зошто не ми одоговори на предходните прашања; зошто резот има форма на буквата V ?
