creigs1707 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ronald: No, I did not say that they were
> demolished...
>
> SC: You IMPLIED it. So, as I said in my previous
> post - you can't have it both ways.
>
> Ronald: Not only the single Khafre Queen's pyramid
> invalidates the GOCT, also the 'precession'
> starting-date 10.500 BC. Your theory is much
> weaker than you think, in fact there is no reason
> to have a theory at all.
>
> SC: As I keep saying - and you keep ignoring - it
> makes no difference to the GOCT what titles
> Egyptologists have for these structures - Cults,
> Queens, Kennel for the dog!


'Kennel for the dog!' ? Shameless !


It simply is
> immaterial to the GOCT which, as previously
> stated, already takes account of Khafre's very
> small southern satellite.
>
> The GOCT considers the SIZE and relative
> DISTRIBUTION of the structures to clasify them -
> not whether a Queen used it as a tomb or not.


The
> GOCT does not rely on the LABELS Egyptologists
> apply to the structures.


Of course not, that's why it's only alternative history. Nothing to do with archaeology/egyptology.


I have used these
> orthodox 'labels' in communications purely for the
> sake of clarification. It does not mean I accept
> that the function advocated by the orthodoxy was
> the ORIGINAL INTENDED function for the structures
> or that the labels are correct.
>
> How can the GOCT be invalidated when it has
> already taken account of and explained the true
> purpose of Khafre's Cult/Queen/satellite/dog
> kennel/whatever. Just because Hawass has changed
> HIS position over the function (and label) of this
> structure does not change the function the
> original Designers had intended for it i.e. as a
> DATE MARKER! Nor, indeed, does it require me to
> change my position.
>
> "The GOCT predicts that only 1 very small
> satellite pyramid will be found at Khafre's
> Pyramid, despite the fact that Khafre had 5
> wives." Is this clearer for you?
>
> AS stated before, find the remains of 3 satellite
> pyramids in a line at Khafre's Pyramid that are of
> comparable size to the other 2 sets of 'Queens'
> and I shall retract the GOCT.


That's all you have
> to do.


I won't, Scott. Your theory is a no-starter. It's not only about whether there are Queen's pyramids or not and/or whether more Queen's pyramids are gonna be find or not, but especially about the time-frame 10.500 BC. Civilizations that were capable of designing 'sacred plans' (what's in a name ?) like you claim, or plans whatsoever, simply did not exist. Man was still too primitive.


Ronald.