The Orion Correlation

by
Norman Scherer
Copyright 2004, Norman Scherer

Introduction

One night in early November 1983, Robert Bauval was camping in the
desert with some friends and family in Saudi Arabia. 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,

Actually, the three stars of Orion's Belt are not perfectly aligned. If you
look carefully you will see that the smallest of them, the one at the top,
is slightly offset to the east...
1


and Robert Bauval's "Orion Correlation" was born.


A True Correlation?

While many people accept as fact that there is a correlation it has quietly
been shown not to be true by John Legon. In his 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.

You may also recall from the Highway to the Infinite article, that one of the
foremost authorities on the so-called "air shafts" of the Great Pyramid,
Rudolph Gantenbrink, flatly states that these shafts could not possibly be...

.......light or "star shafts."
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. Given 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 constellations.

While it is true that the smallest of the three pyramids at Giza, known as
Menkaura's, is offset of the south-west diagonal line linking the two larger
pyramids together, it is also true that the south east corners of all three
pyramids line up perfectly. See green diagonal line in illustration below:






Rate of Precession

Yet the Orion Star Correlation theory limps on, seemingly with a life all its
own. So why this article? 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 10450BC
2
. These
precessional calculations were done using the computer star simulation
program Skyglobe 3.5
3
. 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 my 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 comparisons
Proposed Binary Model

Current Model

Curved path of Sun through space
explains the Earths changing
orientation to inertial space

No significant curvature in Suns path
requires Earths changing orientation
to inertial space to be explained by
unproven complex theories (Occams
Razor applies)

Sidereal and solar year delta are natural
result of binary orbit

Sidereal and solar year delta explanation
conflicts with sidereal and solar day
explanations

Angular momentum balances with dual
star

Peculiar distribution of angular momentum
among planets still unexplained

Sheer edge of solar system expected,
since mass is separated between
companion stars

Observed sheer edge of solar system is
unexpected and not easily explained

Precession accelerates past apoapsis

Lunisolar precession should be constant
but in fact precession calculations are
continually altered

Precession conforms to elliptical
equation

Precession should be relatively constant
but is not

Curved path of Sun explains apparent
wobble without causing rotational time
problems, or requiring equinoctial
slippage

Rotational wobble creates time paradox
that requires unexplained concurrent
motions

Some long cycle comet paths should be
channeled by dual mass

Comet paths should be random but are not



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:

The co-author of "The Orion Mystery", Mr. Adrian G. Gilbert, had made
the following statement in a letter to me on March 23, 1997:

Thank you for your long fax and subsequent letter, both of which I have now studied.
Whilst I find some of the explanation a little technical, I am now sure you are right:
Precession is a mathematical con-trick, just like Ptolemy's epicycles. What we see and
interpret as the earth's 'wobble' is really the effect produced by our sun going round the
star Sirius. This seems perfectly logical to me and I would have thought would come as a
great relief to astronomers, who have been scratching their heads for decades trying to
understand the forces responsible for precession.


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 acheive positions of stars in our remote history. As
explained by Walter Cruttendan:


Visually, the new model is one of a rotating object (the Earth) in an almost circular orbit
around a second object (the Sun), which in turn is an elliptical orbit around a third object
(the binary center of mass of the Sun and a companion star). If the Earths orbit and the
Suns orbit are given, then the equations of classical mechanics predict that the axis of
rotation of the first rotating object (the Earth) will precess (relative to inertial space) at
a rate dictated by the Suns path around its binary center of mass. To an observer on
Earth the first objects axis will appear to precess by 360 degrees in the same amount of
time it takes the second object to undergo a complete orbit around the third object,
independent of the masses and distances involved. In this model the Earths axis does
not really wobble, or change relative to the Sun, but it produces the same observable
now attributed to lunisolar precession -- a precession of the equinox. From this we
conclude that acceleration (and eventual deceleration) of the rate of precession will
depend on the eccentricity of the binary orbit. From Keplers Third Law, we know that all
orbits are elliptical and objects leaving apoapsis accelerate to periapsis and then
decelerate leaving periapsis. Consequently, we now have an explanation for why the
precession rate is accelerating, and we also have a logical reason for why the rate
cannot be extrapolated ad infinitum . Indeed, the most significant clue that precession
represents a binary orbit is its universally recognized but until now, unexplained
acceleration.
5



If this theory is true then there is no way for the "Orion Correlation" to be
tenable.


The Message of the Sphinx

In a follow-up book to The Orion Mystery, Robert Bauval collaborated with
Graham Hancock to write The Message of the Sphinx. In this book they
took the Orion star correlation theory a step further by, among other
things, extrapolating the precessional rate back to the 10,500BC era and
claiming that the Sphinx, (with the body of a lion), was actually trying to
convey its date of carving by gazing at its astronomical equivalent in the
sky, namely the constellation of Leo which would have been "rising on the
cross-quarter sunrise between the winter solstice and the spring equinox.
This sunrise occurs at 14 degrees south of east, the point on the sunrise
targeted by the Khafre causeway
6
." 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 2959' of Leo
around 9500BC (when the autumnal equinox was entering 2959'
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".







1
Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert, The Orion Mystery: unlocking the
secrets of the Pyramids (New York: Crown Publishers, 1994), p. 115.

2
Ibid. p. 192.

3
Ibid.

4
Walter Cruttenden and Vince Dayes , "Understanding Precession of the
Equinox," New Frontiers in Science (on-line version), (2003).

5
Ibid.

6
Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, The Message of the Sphinx (New
York: Crown Publishers, 1996), p. 260.