Robert, an engineer and amateur Egyptologist had recently been pre-occupied with the reasons why the third and smallest of the three pyramids of Giza was apparently not aligned along the same meridian as the two larger pyramids.
For some reason that night he woke up at 3am and gazed at the stars of the Orion constellation. After awakening his friend who also shared his interest in astronomy and had a passion for sailing, they discussed how to navigate using the stars. His friend pointed out how to find the star Sirius from the alignment of the three belt stars of Orion which Robert had been looking at.
As an afterthought his friend uttered these words,
and Robert Bauval's "Orion
Correlation" was born.
methodical and precise article (also called The Orion Correlation),
Mr. Legon leaves no doubt that there most certainly is NOT a
correlation. He also makes a compelling case against one of the main
assertions in Bauval's theory, namely the association of Osiris
with the constellation of Orion.
No! All the shafts bend, often several times. In addition, all the shafts begin, at their lower ends, with horizontal sections about 2 meters in length. So there is no way light from any source could ever have penetrated from the outside into either of the chambers. In several parts of the shafts, with the exception of the lower southern one, we even found extreme angle fluctuations. It is therefore ridiculous for anyone to claim that the shafts could ever have pointed precisely to certain stars.
the many angle fluctuations, the shafts could be construed to be
pointing at some 100 different stars, especially if construction of
the pyramid is gratuitously redated to match specific stellar
See green diagonal line in illustration below:
Initially, when I first read Bauval's books The Orion Mystery and The Message of the Sphinx, I was very excited to read that the Orion Correlation alluded to a pyramid construction date of circa 10,450BC. This was by associating the precessional positions of the Constellation Orion (more specifically the star Al Nitak) with the southern "air shaft" of the King's Chamber circa 2450BC and a corresponding "perfect match" of Orion with the Giza layout circa 10450BC2.
These precessional calculations were done using the computer star simulation program Skyglobe 3.53. I have used this program and while it may have been state of the art in the mid 90's, it is obviously outclassed by much better star simulation programs available today.
One thing it did do, however, was precess thousands of years into the past (and future too) which most programs today will not do. But this may be because the accuracy of precessing star positions this far into the past introduces more and more inaccuracies and error into the results shown on the screen. No matter what software you use though, all of them will show precession as occurring at a constant rate. As explained in Cycles of Precession article this may not be correct. This is because our Sun may be part of a binary star system.
In fact as summarized in the table 4 below it seems
there is better evidence for this as the cause of precession than
the conventional "wobble of the axis" theory that is virtually
accepted as fact.
Binary vs. standard model
The Sirius Research Group is a website devoted to the idea that our Sun is part of a binary system (with Sirius) and they have the mathematical calculations to back it up.
On their website in a section where they publish letters received from interested parties is the following post:
I wonder if Mr. Gilbert understood the implications of what he said.
If he admits that our Sun is in a binary orbit with another star it most likely is an elliptical orbit. If that is true Kepler's Third Law would come into play and the relative velocities of both stars would vary throughout the cycle. What this implies is you cannot extrapolate the current rate of precession back through time to achieve positions of stars in our remote history.
As explained by Walter Cruttendan:
If this theory is true then there is no
way for the "Orion Correlation" to be tenable.
Try as I might with my trusty little Skyglobe program (which I assume they were still using) I could never get Leo to rise at this time (which I assume was around Feb 4, 10500BC at 6:45am in Cairo).
I could only get the constellation Aries rising. In any case, they were still using the current rate of precession back through time which I think will be shown to be inaccurate. It is interesting to note, however, that if you use Yukteswar's model for precession (see diagram below) you would see that the vernal equinox precessed into 29į59' of Leo around 9500BC (when the autumnal equinox was entering 29į59' Aquarius)
This is approximately the time Plato (and Cayce) had for the final destruction of Atlantis.
9500BC also marked the end of the Piscean Age (as marked by the Autumnal Equinox) which rules all the oceans and supposedly the Atlantic Ocean became the final resting place of Atlantis and signified the end of an era. Perhaps this is the significance of the Sphinx-Leo connection. The entering of the vernal equinox into Leo in 9500BC marked the dawning of a new age which would not include the evils of the final inhabitants of Atlantis.
A new civilization was begun in Egypt. Maybe this is how they chose to commemorate this "new beginning".