posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:50 PM
Originally posted by kwakakev
Is there also a correlation between the light intensity of the stars and the heights of the pyramids?
This is what Robert Bauval originally proposed in his Orion Correlation Theory (OCT), stating that because the third (highest) star in the Belt,
Mintaka, was less bright (apparent magnitude) than the other two Belt stars then this is why the third and smallest of the main Giza pyramids, G3, was
built significantly smaller. However, a cursory glance at the Belt stars in the night sky will show that the third star is only marginally less bright
to the naked eye and certainly not enough to warrant such a reduction in size of G3, its terrestrial counterpart. Also, the middle star of the Belt is
actually the brightest (slightly) and, therefore, should have corresponded with the largest pyramid, G1. This is not the case as G1 (the Great
Pyramid) correlates with the second brightest star.
It remains my opinion that the Giza Blueprint WAS INDEED derived from the Belt stars but only in the manner presented in the OP. I do not believe the
apparent magnitude of the three Belt stars had any bearing whatsoever on the Gizamid dimensions as Bauval proposed some 20 or so years ago.
edit on 28/10/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Fix Typo.