Talk:Orion correlation theory

ORION
Both the Archaeoastronomy and Astrological Ages pages needed a page on the OCT to link to. I've set up this page from cut 'n' pastes from the Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock pages. It's a controversial topic so I've tried to keep to NPOV. I'm sure it can be improved. Alunsalt (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sphinx dating?
The last paragraph of the Leo and the Sphinx section describes three geologists by name that propose a much older carving date than the more widely accepted King Khafra dates. However, in refuting these three, the text simply says that many unnamed geologists dispute these older dates -- who are they, and how respected, and how many? -- and that Egyptologists dispute these older dates. The mention of Egyptologists disputing the geologically derived dates would seem to hold little water, as it is both completely expected since the older dates conflict with their own assertions, and also because it is vaguely akin to a historical linguist disputing an archaeologist's finding about a particular ethnic group's settlement dates. Egyptology, for better or worse, is (or at least appears to be?) much more subjective than mathematically based geological stone weathering analyses. As such, it would be great if someone more knowledgeable than I would be kind enough to expand upon the who, what, how, and why the proposed older Spinx carving dates are disputed among geologists.

TIA, -- Erik Anderson 05:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as specific scientists (Geologists or Egyptologists) disputing the older dates for the sphinx the issue is that the scientific mainstream in both professions accept the King Khafra dates. This is also the case among archaeologists.  There is a fringe opinion of earlier dating - derived from some dubious statements regarding water erosion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That being said, the following is a quote from the site on the sphinx, referencing water erosion theory and lists several authors who dispute the theory: "Most Egyptologists, dating the building of the Sphinx to Khafra's reign (2520-2492 BC), do not accept the Water Erosion Theory. Alternative explanations for the evidence of weathering, from Aeolian processes and acid rain to exfoliation, haloclasty, thermal expansion, and even the poor quality limestone of the Sphinx, have been put forward by Egyptologists and geologists, including Mark Lehner,[15] James A. Harrell of the University of Toledo,[22] Lal Gauri, John J. Sinai and Jayanta K. Bandyopadhyay,[23] Alex Bordeau,[24] and Lambert Dolphin, a former senior research physicist at SRI International.[25]"Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Pyramidology
I oppose this proposed merger. Pyramidology is a respectable branch of archaeological science and Bauval's pseudo-scientific speculations have no place in it. EraNavigator (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cancel the above. I have now renamed the Pyramidology article Pyramidology (pseudo-science) to distinguish it from Pyramidology (archaeological), which is the respectable, scientific study of the pyramids in their archaeological context. (it's something like the difference between astronomy and astrology. I now support the merger of this article with Pyramidology (pseudo-science) EraNavigator (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * oppose, there's sufficient material here to justify its own article, and the OCT is not fully a subset of pyramidological speculation anyways&mdash;it draws inspiration (if that's the right word) mainly from other pseudo-archaeological and pseudo-astronomical claims, not really directly related to any alleged special properties of the pyramids themselves. Incidentally, I disagree with the move of pyramidology to pyramidology (pseudo-science), for reasons explained at its talk page. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 02:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree largely with the points made above. Despite its contentious status, Orion Correlation Theory is still a theory and seems to merit an article in its own right. -- Adasta   [[Image:Flag_of_England.svg|15px]] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] 11:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Toe rather belt?
This article covers only the issue of whether the angles match, but that is hardly the only reason to think this theory implausible. According to this article, the hieroglyph traditionally interpreted as referring to Orion is better translated as "the Orion star" and probably referred to Rigel (Orion's "toe") in the pyramid era. This implies that a soul arrived from Sirius and departed to Rigel -- thus there is no reason to think that the three stars in Orion's belt had any special significance in Egyptian cosmology. OCT assumes that the three pyramid pharaohs identified with three different stars, but pharaohs were all identified the same way astrologically, i.e. there was no tradition of associating a star with an individual pharaoh. The air shaft in the Great Pyramid that supposedly points at Orion's belt goes upward at an angle of exactly 45 degrees. This suggests that the shafts have a geometric logic, so whatever star they point at is just coincidence. Isn't it only logical to think that people who built pyramids might be obsessed with geometry? Kauffner (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Inverted to fit?
While I strongly suspect the correlation to be nothing more than coincidental, I am wondering at the comments about the map of the pyramids being 'inverted to fit' the picture of the sky. Flipping the map left-for-right would be cheating, without question; however, as I recall, the ancient Egyptians drew maps with south at the top, making such a reorientation completely reasonable. Could someone more knowledgable about this speculation comment? Wyvern (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How easy it is to make a fortune with a garbage like this.. This is how it looks when someone goes and positions themselves (while in-line with north-south orientation of earth) behind orion stars and look through them towards earth. While, the real orientation of the pyramids is this. There seems no match; while pyramids are aligned from southwest to northeast, orion's belt is aligned from southeast to northwest. Pyramids can only "align" with orion's belt when earth rotates half turn and pyramids become located on the other side of earth, then "imaginary alignment lines" passes through earth, can enter through bottoms and leave tops of pyramids. However, even then, there is no 100% match because Pyramid of Menkaure does not coincide with orion star alnitak (alnitak stays on above of the line joining the other two stars, while menkaure stays on below of the line joining the other two pyramids). Logos5557 (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bauval's edit
Most of it looks ok, although I removed some shouting (all caps), etc. But I've removed a bit chunk and am placing it here for others to comment on and replace where there is consensus - see WP:COI.

The matter was numerically explained by physicist Dr. Paul LaViolette as follows:

"Actually the pyramids do not exactly reproduce the arrangement of these stars. The ratio of the separation of the pyramids (Cheops-Chephren; Chephren-Menkaura) is 10 percent larger than the corresponding of the stellar counterpart in Orion (Zeta-epsilon; Epsilon-Delta). Also the angular deviation of the smallest pyramid from the line connecting the peak of the two largest pyramids is 32 percent larger than the deviation of Delta Orionis from the line connecting Zeta and Epsilon Orionis. The discrepancy cannot be resolved by the relative movement of the stars because all three stars have very low proper motion. Knowing that the Egyptians were quite adept in astronomy and masonry, the reason for this discrepancy needs to be resolved." Paul LaViolette, Earth Under Fire: Humanity's survival of the Ice Age. Starbust Publications 1997, p. 107

To this criticism Bauval pointed out that the ancient Egyptians did not have optical instruments and were using simple, rudimentary sighting devices to measure the position of stars. Indeed, to know that there is 10% variance in separation, and 32% variance in angular rotation one can only determine these variations with fine optical instruments in the first place. Nonetheless, Bauval felt that the issue had to be 'resolved', as Laviolette pointed out. According to Bauval:

"There are several ways one could go about measuring and 'mapping' Orion's belt. But let me say that the idea having the asterism reflected on a surface is not practically feasable, because first the AE did not have perfectly smooth glass mirrors, and copper or other metal reflectors would badly distort the asterism (if it could be seen at all!). I have myself tried a mirror just by curiosity, and the asterism apparent size is about 10-15 mm.... far too small to draw with 'zero error' as some have suggested. As for a flat water pool, this cannot work as the asterism is at 45 degrees (or 10 degrees if one considers the epoch 10,500 BC). I think the question must be asked in a different way: what was the objective of the AE in replicating Orion's belt on the ground? The answer is rooted in religious idea and rebirth rituals of the Old Kingdom. Thus it follows that the objective was not a scientific/technical one, but a religious one. Anyone can go out at night, look at Orion's belt, draw it on a piece of paper or on the ground. What will vary is the level of precision the replication is made, which depends on the instruments used (or lack of them), and the accuracy of the person (there are surveyors who are better than others). Assuming logically that the AE surveyor/astronomer used simple non-optical sighting instruments to measure apparent size and angle of rotation, then it follows that must assume that, at best, he will have a tolerance value expected in such non-optical meathods. We know that much later Cladius Ptolemy managed a 10 arc minutes accuracy. The 'discrepancies' noted are 10% in separation, and 32% in angle of rotation.

The ANGULAR DISTANCE of one star to the other, say Epsilon to Delta Orionis, is 1 deg. 23' 09". This is 83 arc min. Thus 10% is 8.3 arc min. which is more or less what we'd expect.

The ANGLE OF ROTATION is NOT the same as an angular distance, because the offset produced depends on the length of the lines forming the angle. This length is about 15 mm. And the angle of rotation is 7 deg. Thus the 32% discrepancy is 2.25 deg. IN ROTATION in a circle whose radius is 15 mm. This would translate to an ANGULAR DISTANCE of about 10 arc min, again within the accuracy level expected.

As one can see from the above, it all depends what percentage of what size or angle is considered. Also 32% sounds 'large', the question is: 32% of what? 1 kilometer? 1 meter? 1 centimeter?... or 1 millimeter? In the case of the later, expecially when applied to a non-optical instrument measurement, is pratically negligeable.

Then there is the setting out operation to go undertake on the ground over a scale of 1:60,000. I won't bother with that, since it now should be obvious that the Pyramid Builders did an excellent job of it. In other words they were excellent land surveyors. Nonetheless the carried into their land surveying an 'built in error' from the previous astronomical observation, as they were limited to 10 arc min. accuracy with non-optical tools.

The "32 percent" discrepancy is, quite simple, a red herring in this context." Ending of Bauval's edit. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

... in correspondence to various ... ?
The theory was first put forward by Robert Bauval in 1983 in correspondence to various (notably Sir I.E.S. Edwards, T.G.H. James), and first published in 1989 in Discussions in Egyptology, vol. 13.

I have taken the initiative and have inserted "authors". If this is somehow incorrect (and it does not make sense as it is now anyway) feel free to revert. MrZoolook (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, it makes sense, but it isn't properly sourced and could be seen as an attempt by Bauval to gain credibility by saying he wrote to these experts. It was added by an IP claiming (I believe this) - we'd really need a third party source for it if it should be included at all. I've removed it. I'm uneasy about the bit of almost personal narrative about taking his family one night etc - that's from the Robert Bauval article (added when this article was created and some of it in the first edit of Bauval's article). That's unsourced also and I can't find a source. I think it should be removed from both articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dates
If The Sphinx is supposed to point at the sunrise in Leo on midsummer day, that occurs best at around 6000 BC, which makes it a more likely date of construction. This can be checked on any planetarium software. 10,000 BCE is way too early, Leo has precessed well out of view at that point.

You need to remove that date or make a note its disputed

Reply to "Dates"
No one said that the Lion Statue pointed at the sunrise in Leo in midsummer. The Lion Statue faced the equinox sunrise (due east). And, when the vernal equinox was in Leo, then, when facing sunrise at the vernal equinox, the statue would also be facing Leo. That has been taken as suggesting that the statue's lion shape can be explained if it was built to face the vernal equinox sunrise when the vernal equinox was in Leo. The vernal equinox was in the ecliptic-longitude range encompassed by leo's sickle-and-right-triangle asterism from around 10,548 BC, to roughly around 8300 or 8400 BC, or thereabouts. For some specification of the information from which those dates were derived, see my comment below:

A few comments regarding the 10,500 BC vernal equinox's position.
(Before someone "refutes" me with planetarium software, I'll point out that, typically, planetarium software assumes that the current precession-rate has always been the precession-rate. ...And planetarium software probably or usually disregards proper motion, the gradual motion of stars, noticeable over the millennia. Those two assumptions--constant current precession-rate, and no proper moton--are the ones that resulted in Fairall's and Krupp's error) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.166.175 (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tony Fairall and Ed Krupp are quoted as saying that, in 10,500 BC, the vernal equinox wasn't in Leo, but was within the modern boundaries of Virgo.

First of all, of course, where that year's vernal equinox was, with respect to modern constllaton-boundaries, is irrelevant, because maybe the late Pleistocene people hadn't yet heard about the modern constellation-boundaries.

Additionally:

1. The 2000 equatorial co-ordinates (RA and dec) that Fairall gave for the vernal equinox of 10,500 BC are exactly what one would get if one assumed that precession had always occurred at its current rate. But that's known to be incorrect. The precession-rate has been increasing. The precession-rate over the past 12,500 years has been less than the current rate.

2. Jaques Laskar is a distinguished, prominent and respected astronomer, and an expert on longterm celestial mechanics. He has published precession-rate curves that show the precession-rate over the millennia.

By Laskar's most Fairall-favorable precession-rate-curve, the local rate-minimum, occurring around 10,500 BC, was 49 arcseconds per Julian year.

The current rate is 50.28 arcseconds per Julian year.

If one assume that the rate varied linearly, with respect to time, during the interval from 10,500 BC to the present, then that implies an average precession-rate, during that interval, of (50.28 + 49)/2. That's 49.64 arcseconds per year.

Because the curve, over the entire interval of interest, is upward-curving, then the above-described linear approximation of it will over-estimate the area under the curve (the accumulated precession) over that interval. That favors Fairall's claim, because it makes the 10,500 BC vernal equinox look farther east (left) than it was. In other words, the equinox was farther west (rightward) than the linear approximation would suggest. ...more toward Leo, and farther from Virgo.

3. The matter of whether the equinox was within the ecliptic-longitude range of Leo's sickle-and-right-triange lion asterism depends on the position of that asterism's east (left) boundary--Denebola, Beta Leonis.

"Proper motion" is the gradual movement of the stars, noticeable over the millenia. Denebola is a fairly fast-moving star. Since 10,500 BC, Denebola has moved about 1.72 degrees, in a mostly westward (rightward) direction.

4. When that Fairall-favorable linear approximation of the precession-rate is applied, when the 49.64 estimate for the average precession-rate is applied, and when Denebola's proper motion is applied, you'll find that the vernal equinox, in 10,500 BC was within the ecliptic-longitude range encompassed by Leo's sickle-and-right-triangle lion asterism. In other words, in 10,500 BC, the vernal equinox was in Leo.

5. Additionally, to answer Fairall's and Krupp's statement that the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was within the modern boundaries of Virgo: Actually, when we use the Fairall-favoring linear approximation to the precession-rate, giving an average precession-rate of 49.64 over the interval of interest, a different result is found:

In 10,500 BC, the vernal equinox was well within the modern boundaries of Leo.

Summary:

Fairall's and Krupp's 2000 equatorial co-ordinates for the vernal equinox in 10,500 BC are exactly what they'd get if they made the incorrect assumption that the precession had always occurred at its current rate.

But, by Laskar's precession-rate curves, the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was well within the modern boudnaries of Leo. Additionally, allowing for the proper motion of Denebola (Beta Leonis, the east (left) boundary of Leo's sickle-and-right-triangle lion asterism) the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was also within the ecliptic-longitude range encompassed by Leo's lion asterism.

Proposed/Requested addtion to the article:

"It has been argued that Fairall's and Krupp's 2000 equatorial co-ordinates for the vernal equinox in 10,500 BC are exactly what they'd get if they made the incorrect assumption that the precession had always occurred at its current rate.

"...And that, by Jaques Laskar's precession-rate curves, the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was well within the modern boudnaries of Leo. ...And that, additionally, allowing for the proper motion of Denebola (Beta Leonis, the east (left) boundary of Leo's sickle-and-right-triangle lion asterism) the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was also within the ecliptic-longitude range encompassed by Leo's lion asterism.

"For more details, click on "Talk", at the upper left corner of this page."

Can I add that to the article? Should I just do so, with the understanding that it will be deleted if judged inappropriate?

98.77.166.175 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Michael Ossipoff

98.77.166.175 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Michael Ossipoff

98.77.166.175 (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Michael Ossipoff

80.5.101.158 (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no sources to back Bauval's claims up
Below paragraph in criticsm section should be fact-checked. Seymour's book is inaccessible, and I suspect he really had rejected Krupp's arguments.

"According to Bauval and Hancock, some astronomers (including Dr. Archie Roy, Dr. Percy Seymour, Dr. Mary Bruck, Dr. Giulio Magli), however, have rejected Krupp's argument. The correlation, they claim, is a visual one when standing north of the Giza pyramids and looking south. Archie Roy, professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Glasgow University, and Percy Seymour, astronomer and astrophysicist at Plymouth University U.K., have both publicly rejected several of Krupp's arguments, including the accusation that Bauval and Gilbert deliberately inverted the pyramid map." Logos5557 (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014
In the "Objections" section of the article, astronomers Tony Fairall and Ed Krupp are quoted as saying that, in 10,500 BC, the vernal equinox was in Virgo, rather than in Leo. As I point out in the proposed added text, below, the 2000 equatorial co-ordinates (Right Ascension and Declination) that Fairall gave for the vernal equinox of 10,500 BC are exactly what he'd have gotten by the incorrect assumption that the precession rate has always been what it is today. But, in fact, the precession-rate has been increasing, and was lower during the past 12,500 years.

I realize that it must seem doubtful, when an amateur corrects two university professors. But it won't be difficult to verify that Fairall's right-ascension and declination for the 10,500 BC vernal equinox are exactly what he'd get by incorrectly using the current precession rate.

As for the question of how two university astronomy professors could be mistaken, I suggest that sometimes some scientists are highly motivated to debunk pseudoscience, and that sometimes "the ends justify the means", so that the usual scientific standards for thorough checking before publication might be perceived to not apply.

It's my opinion that Bauval's and Hancock's theory of a prehistoric super-civilization isn't supported by the evidence. The absence of the signs that such a civiliztion would have left is sufficient to refute its existence. So a false astronomical statement (that the vernal equinox that year was in Virgo) isn't necessary for the purpose of debunking.

The ends don't justify the means. The desire to debunk doesn't justify the intentional or careless use of a false statement.

Anyway, all I'm asking, for the proposed added text, is a statement that it has been claimed that that the statement, and the assumption on which it's based, are incorrect

Here is the text that I request to be added to the article. I'd suggest inserting this text directly below the point where Fairall's and Krupp's statement about the equinox in Virgo appears, or directly after the part that quotes Fairall's and Krupp's objections.

[Propsed text to be added]:

It has been argued that Fairall's and Krupp's 2000 equatorial co-ordinates for the vernal equinox in 10,500 BC are exactly what they'd get if they made the incorrect assumption that the precession had always occurred at its current rate. "...And that, by Jaques Laskar's precession-rate curves, the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was well within the modern boudnaries of Leo. ...And that, additionally, allowing for the proper motion of Denebola (Beta Leonis, the east (left) boundary of Leo's sickle-and-right-triangle lion asterism) the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was also within the ecliptic-longitude range encompassed by Leo's lion asterism. "For more details, click on "Talk", at the upper left corner of this page [End of proposed text to be added]

Michael111214 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Michael Ossipoff (Michael111214) Michael111214 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see WP:NOT and WP:OR.

Can I reply to or ask about that decision not to mention evidence that Fairall's & Krupp's quoted statement is incorrect?

I've deleted what I'd said here, because I want to say additional things, but I probably shouldn't just keep adding to it. So I'm replacing it instead.

It's good that Wikipedia evaluates proposed articles by authoritativeness and notability, and doesn't publish original research--because it would be difficult to check all of it.

But what if the authoritative and notable source is demonstrably wrong? No, not wrong because I say so, but easily verified as wrong by anyone who knows an astronomer, contacts and asks an astronomer, or who has access to astronomical software, such as the widely-available, commonly-sold "planetarium software". ...and also can report how what precession-rate or precession-rate function that software uses.

The purpose of the notability, authoritativeness, and original-research rules are to keep the articles accurate. I'm only asking for a better check on the accuracy of Fairall's and Krupp's claim that the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was in Virgo and not in Leo.

...and, until that check can be made, caution regarding accuracy calls for a brief notation, saying something like, "It is claimed that there is cause for concern about that accuracy of that statement, because there's a claim that Fairall's 2000: 11h 40m, +2.2 position for the vernal equinox is exactly what would be gotten by the incorrect assumption that the precession has always had its current rate."

Another easy way to check would be to just ask Krupp: Ask Krupp if he'll give his professional guarantee that the 11h 40m, +2.2 position _wasn't_ gotten by assuming that the precession always had its modern or recent value, rather than allowing for its variation over the past 12,500 years.

As I may have mentioned, by Laskar's precession-rate curves, the 10,500 BC vernal equinox was in Leo, and not in Virgo....by every standard and interpretation.

Why is that important? Not because I'm trying to defend Bauval's and Hancock's archaeological theories. I don't subscribe to those theories.

It's imporant because scientific accuracy is important.

It's important because when, on an astronomical question, two popular writers are right, and two professional astronomers are wrong, then something is going on. That's noteworthy and important, regardless of whether the error is an honest error. Maybe it was just sloppiness and carelessness. But that implies a profound disprespect for scientific standards. Is there a different accuracy-standard when a scientist wants to get a "debunking" result, and is only giving an incorrect result to the public, as opposed to when he's publishing in a journal? at's serious disrespect for the public. ...publicizing, to them, sloopy and careless information, knowing that it's based on wrong data and hasn't even been checked for accuracy.

And that's assuming that it was an honest error. ...but we won't go there.

Michael Ossipoff

— &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Original request
I'm not sure if this site is reliable, considering it seems to be the ramblings of one person who runs the site. I asked for a reference check on IRC chat, and they agreed that this site is not reliable. Thus the lines that used this website as reference, as well as the references themselves should be removed.


 * Fairall, Anthony (June 1999). "Precession and the layout of the Ancient Egyptian pyramids". Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society.
 * Krupp, Ed (February 1997). "Pyramid Marketing Schemes". Sky and Telescope.
 * Krupp, Ed (2002). "Astronomical Integrity at Giza". The Antiquity of Man. Retrieved 2006-08-08.

205.155.225.1 (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What "site" are you talking about? You're referring to three totally different sources, some of which are print magazines, which is a de facto WP:RS.  Furthermore, you didn't even do what you said; you didn't remove some lines; you blanked a whole section.  And you did it on your personal edict, against the concept of discussion and consensus.  All of which is totally needless.  Please stop.  We are here to describe the controversy amongst reliable sources, not to delete them. — Smuckola(talk) 03:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For clarification, the (single) source discussed on IRC was the "Antiquity of Man" source in the above list (to which I have added the URL). We only discussed its ability to be used as RS. Primefac (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The title of the above comment section says "source are", and then the drastic self contradictions and edit war head on from there. FYI, there's no need to format these fake citations here because the real formatting exists in the article already, so don't worry about that.  They were apparently reconstructed in a randomly substandard format here just for this comment.  In addition to the apparently confused (and wrong) implicit assertions about the two print journals, nobody has given any policy-based proof or rationale at all for why that site is supposedly non-reliable.  So, there hasn't even been a discussion about it, let alone consensus.  So far, this is just bizarre, wrong, and needless.  :( — Smuckola(talk) 03:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please accept my standing ovation for your superlative citation formatting. However, please clarify for me the loss of the URLs because the page contents say that they are in fact the actual online excerpt from the printed source.  Also, you changed one print source to another.  Why did you do that?  I mean it's formatted well, but it's apparently print and so I can't read it, but it's odd to have the same author write two different articles on the same subject and not cite them both.  I don't know what happened there.  Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 03:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Smuckola, I also saw the discussion between 202.155 and primefac on, and since primefac has headed off to bed, I will go ahead and give a followup-comment.  Here is what the refs looked like before today, please note the use of a single domain-name (despite three different publishers).


 * ref#9 == (bug:  actually published in A&G not JRAS.)  (note:  convenience-link to not-the-author's-website vs corrected-doi-link)
 * ref#10 == (note:  convenience-link to author's website vs offline-cite-only)
 * ref#11 == (note:  "convenience"-link to author's website)


 * So, the situation began with 202.155 asking on IRC whether antiquityOfMan was WP:RS, and a good-faith analysis that it looked like WP:BLOGS by primefac. Nobody suggested removing the entire criticism-section, but because the three refs above (Fairall'99 Krupp'97 Krupp'02) were at the time all WP:CONVENIENCE links to *copies* of their contents hosted at www.antiquityOfMan.com, it was 202.155's good-faith opinion that the entire section ought to go.  Which you, User:Smuckola, correctly reverted, and my thanks for that.  :-)
 * 202.155 mentioned on IRC that they had been reverted, and that they didn't understand why, at which point primefac (and myself now getting involved) noticed that an entire section had been deleted, and obviously-WP:RS names like JRAS and Sky&Telescope ... but the problem turned out to be the convenience-links to antiquityOfMan for backup-copies of said pieces. So, to fix up the problem, primefac edited the Fairall'99 and the Krupp'97 refs to be direct links rather than convenience-links, along the way factually correcting Fairall'99 to be Astronomy&Geophysics-as-published-by-the-RAS which isn't quite the same as JRAS.  Since it looks like Krupp'02 ... which maybe ought to be Krupp'01 per this book... was by the same Ed Krupp that authored a regular column for Sky&Telescope when they wrote Krupp'97, and said Krupp'97 was mentioned by Fairall'99 in the body-prose, for the moment the link to Krupp'02 was also left mainspaced (and WP:GOOG at scholar.google.com says that Krupp'01/'02/'03 has a few cites), on the basis that Krupp's website AntiquityOfMan might be an exception to WP:BLOGS-written-by-a-recognized-expert.
 * Anyways, although it happened in a bit of a roundabout fashion, which might seem bizarre at first glance, if you compare the way the refs looked before and after primefac made their edits, you can see where 205.155 got the mistaken impression that all three refs were 'from' the one blogger's website. Which has now been corrected, for the most part, though the article does need some further work... in particular, the picture-caption up top fails to mention that you have to flip the stars 180 degrees (or I suppose flip the pyramids 180 degrees) for the purported alignment to actually work-as-shown.  See the newly-fixed-up link to Fairall'99, which has a nice one-page explanation of the mathematical inconsistencies within the Orion correlation theory, according to the critics anyways.  Hope this long explanation makes clear what happened, and why.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Wow.  I'm going to have to nod and back away from most of that!  I'm impressed though.  This is a complicated subject.   didn't do anything crazy; the original person did.  I was just referring to that.  So I guess you or he will be able to restore the convenience URLs back in place huh?  Aren't you still saying that they're relevant? — Smuckola(talk) 07:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , as 75.108 says, the Fairall ref seems to be a case of mistyping on the part of the Antiquity guy, and the DOI links to the original source. I removed the Antiquity URL from the Krupp1 (1997) reference because, to be completely honest, without complete verification from the original source we have no idea if the text of the Antiquity version was altered; given the mis-attribution of the Fairall article, the likelihood of such an event (intentional or accidental) is non-zero. I'm still not entirely convinced the remaining Antiquity references constitute RS, but that's what talk pages are meant to be used for. Of course, at this point it might be worth re-starting that particular discussion, since it was almost immediately derailed the first time... Primefac (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , please WP:AGF. I was bold (and a bit reckless) when I deleted the entire section, that much can be said. You were right to revert my edits, which I only made because I wasn't sure of the reliability of the sources for that section. The entire section was based off the claims of this source, (including the bottom portion). Please stop acting like I have some personal agenda, and that's the reason I removed the section. I was not sure of the reliability of the sources. As said, asking about the reliability of sources, among other things, is what these talk pages are for. Also, you don't need to resort to personal attacks by pointing out that I made a simple typo in my Section title, thus insulting my intelligence. Thanks, 2602:304:CDC0:D470:31F8:A0A2:E99A:EA67 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of sources
There have been some concerns regarding the reliability of the sources in this article, specifically those listed at http://www.antiquityofman.com ("Astronomical Integrity at Giza" and "The Date of the Great Sphinx of Giza"). Should they be replaced with original/better sources, or should their related content be removed? The Schoch article (Great Sphinx) is from a conference paper, which is rarely considered RS, and should probably be replaced/removed. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with using Krupp's article? I agree a conference paper by Schoch is inappropriate and we should be able to get something better. There are two other sources we shouldn't be using, Constellationsofwords.com and the 7th Wonder one which is a dead link but seems to be by an engineer who is a Dean at the University of South Florida. I note that we are using a book presenting an astrological approach to Jesus's birth as a source for Bauval and someone has challenged it. Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily have issue with Krupp's article, I just think that if it was published elsewhere first we should be linking to that instead of hoping the Antiquity of Man owner didn't mistype something. However, it sounds like this entire article could use some cleanup and re-verification of sources. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem with the Orion Correlation Theory? Brightest Star in Orion's Belt does not correspond with the Great Pyramid!
Has Bauval or Hancock ever addressed the fact that the central star in Orion's belt, Alnilam, is the brightest star in the belt but the Great Pyramid is not the central pyramid? Shouldn't the brightest star correspond with the great Pyramid?

Alnilam is a variable star, but its entire range of variability lies below the magnitude of Alnitak (which is not variable). According to the Wikipedia article on Alnilam, "Alnilam is the middle star. It is slightly variable, from magnitude 1.64 to 1.74." And Alnitak has a magnitude of 1.77. (Lower magnitude = brighter star).

And both Alnilam and Alnitak are far away enough so that their distances from the solar system would not change by very much over the last few ten thousand years, thus ruling out the possibility that Alnitak was brighter than Alnilam in the past due to their relative motions with respect to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B13A:50B0:CCB9:25EC:60B2:CD4C (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orion correlation theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713000346/http://www.ianlawton.com/oc8.htm to http://www.ianlawton.com/oc8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Theory
This should more correctly be called a hypothesis. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it should. Actually, it should be called fantasy. Do reliable sources call it "Orion correlation theory"?
 * I replaced the word "theory" at several places in the article but did not touch the "Orion correlation theory" wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)