> 26.34.23 is the coordinate equivalent using
> degrees.minutes.seconds. 30 minutes = 0.5 degrees,
> therefore, 26.34.23 is approximately 26.5 degrees.
> It's actually closer to 26.57 degrees, thereby
> adding a total of another 0.07 degrees, or 0.035
> degrees to the upper and lower range of the DP
> FOV. This increases the upper FOV to 26.87 degrees
> (vs. my rough estimate of 26.835 degrees) which is
> still significantly lower than Thuban's minimum
> which would still be greater than 28 degrees. As I
> said, it was a rough estimate, but even when
> reconciling the small estimation error in
> precision, the calculation still arrives at the
> same result: Thuban would not be visible from the
> bottom of the DP in 2550BC. Considering that
> 28-26.87 = 1.13 degrees, G1 construction would
> need to have been about 300 years earlier, and
> that's just for Thuban to barely be seen at the
> upper edge of DP. For it to be in the middle of
> the DP, add another 160 years for a total of 460
> years earlier than 2550BC.
> Meanwhile, Petrie reports an average angle of the
> entire DP to be at
> l#36]26.31.23[/url] (D.M.S) which is more like
> 26.52 degrees which is why I used the rough
> estimate of 26.5 and which is about 0.05 degrees
> tighter than Lehner's data, making it that much
> harder to align with Thuban.
> Of course, this assumes everything was kumbaya
> with planet Earth, including its precessional and
> celestial tilt angles, which, depending on how
> long ago Giza was developed, is anyone's guess
> regarding what terrestrial or extraterrestrial
> event(s) might have altered the Earth's rotation
> significantly enough to allow a Thuban alignment.
> I'll leave it to the claimant to provide the
> relevant historic evidence and calculations.
Evidently I'm not understanding this. Was Proctor correct in his coordinates for the two dates? But incorrect in that Thuban would be visible from the DP?