Hi Don,
>
> I don't know about Graham but I tired of the
> ridiculous circlular arguments your side uses.
>
> The obvious points are:
>
> 1. You've claimed to have a mathematical proof.
> However, you can't show how it would fit any of
> the definitions on the Wikipedia page.
>
> This is of no value whatsoever in explaining a
> solution for you folks here refuse to believe what
> your eyes show you,. What is the point of trying
> to explain a reason for what you fail to accept
> such as the geometry which is before your eyes.
>
> 2. Why should there be a "plan", and why should it
> involve the pyramids alone?
>
>
> There is a plan because it was the most sacred
> spot in Egypt and it corresponds with the heavens
> which is either where they were going or where
> they came from. To insult The Egyptians by saying
> they placed these pyramids here for no good reason
> and that at least a hundred geometric measurements
> fit by accident is absurd. To claim these are
> meaningless is ... well meaningless in the
> extreme.
I apologise if you find the discussion tiresome, Don. However, just to set the main points out again:
1. Graham has claimed to have a mathematical proof, and been asked to substantiate that claim.
2. There are so many structures at Giza that it's hardly surprising that relationships can be found, but the onus is on the discoverer to demonstrate that they are deliberate. (Allow me to remind you of the example of Anthony's bathroom).
Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at
Rules and Guidelines
hallofmaatforum@proton.me