| May 19, 2024, 2:10 am UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| September 27, 2001 03:39PM |
<HTML>Hi Duncan
,
You make some fair points here, and I understand the need for comparing Spence to Bauval. But as for the stars-to-ground, there's still a lot of work left to do. On the other hand (and for the time being) there is a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting the Giza/Belt corellation (work done).
There is another paper in progress by myself and Chris Ash on this. So far, things look pretty good - in fact, most of what has come to light as a result was in no way forced. We are being extremely thourough with the calcs, and have included wide parameters. I' love to give details, but right now, I apologize for not elaborating. Where things do not 'fit' we will be providing full disclosure along with what does not; we refuse to be selective. Fair science, yes?
Most if not all of your concerns about Giza/Belt and other pyramids are being looked at, and quite honestly, some are excellent candidates, while a lot of others are very obviously just structures built 'wherever'. Remember too, that a great deal of the c.100 pyramids in Egypt were built by different core leaders in different epochs, and indeed practices would have changed. (Look at Meoris - *lol* no star configs there! (I'm agreeing with you)). Although, it is entirely reasonable to consider that not every pyramid must have a stellar counterpart (s).
________________
About Nature. I was unaware of the volume of letters sent in reply to Dr Spence's (original?) argument. Good for them.
"<I>That you did not receive a reply would suggest they do not take your criticism at all seriously which would seem strange considering how highly regarded Nature is within the scientific community.</I>"
Nature is not aware of my rebuttal yet, so how could I 'not receive a reply'?
I decided not to follow up with Nature directly for fear that... well, I think you know, yes? If in the future they do choose not to reply to me, then it would not be because of weakness on the part of my argument (which IS strong) - no sir - more likely the timely placement of a slanderous letter would drive them from dealing with me. I heard it through the grapevine that someone was going to do this exact thing, and also to contact Dr Spence in the hope of destroying my chances at even being heard. Weird, eh? I shouldn't matter if I'm the biggest ***** on Earth; review is review, opinion is opinion, and data is data.
Therefore, to save myself the headache in trying to explain a 'situation' and get bogged down in something the has NOTHING to do with the comparative status of mine and Spence's version (the professional science of it), I am dealing with undisclosed publications in Canada and the USA. (Mainly so an un-named party will not attempt the same at those as well).
Cheers, and thanks for your comments.
Avry</HTML>
,You make some fair points here, and I understand the need for comparing Spence to Bauval. But as for the stars-to-ground, there's still a lot of work left to do. On the other hand (and for the time being) there is a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting the Giza/Belt corellation (work done).
There is another paper in progress by myself and Chris Ash on this. So far, things look pretty good - in fact, most of what has come to light as a result was in no way forced. We are being extremely thourough with the calcs, and have included wide parameters. I' love to give details, but right now, I apologize for not elaborating.
Where things do not 'fit' we will be providing full disclosure along with what does not; we refuse to be selective. Fair science, yes?Most if not all of your concerns about Giza/Belt and other pyramids are being looked at, and quite honestly, some are excellent candidates, while a lot of others are very obviously just structures built 'wherever'. Remember too, that a great deal of the c.100 pyramids in Egypt were built by different core leaders in different epochs, and indeed practices would have changed. (Look at Meoris - *lol* no star configs there! (I'm agreeing with you)). Although, it is entirely reasonable to consider that not every pyramid must have a stellar counterpart (s).
________________
About Nature. I was unaware of the volume of letters sent in reply to Dr Spence's (original?) argument. Good for them.
"<I>That you did not receive a reply would suggest they do not take your criticism at all seriously which would seem strange considering how highly regarded Nature is within the scientific community.</I>"
Nature is not aware of my rebuttal yet, so how could I 'not receive a reply'?
I decided not to follow up with Nature directly for fear that... well, I think you know, yes? If in the future they do choose not to reply to me, then it would not be because of weakness on the part of my argument (which IS strong) - no sir - more likely the timely placement of a slanderous letter would drive them from dealing with me. I heard it through the grapevine that someone was going to do this exact thing, and also to contact Dr Spence in the hope of destroying my chances at even being heard. Weird, eh? I shouldn't matter if I'm the biggest ***** on Earth; review is review, opinion is opinion, and data is data.
Therefore, to save myself the headache in trying to explain a 'situation' and get bogged down in something the has NOTHING to do with the comparative status of mine and Spence's version (the professional science of it), I am dealing with undisclosed publications in Canada and the USA. (Mainly so an un-named party will not attempt the same at those as well).
Cheers, and thanks for your comments.
Avry</HTML>
| Subject | Author | Posted |
|---|---|---|
|
Anonymous User | September 27, 2001 06:31AM |
|
R. Avry Wilson | September 27, 2001 03:39PM |
|
Mikey Brass | September 27, 2001 04:24PM |
|
Anonymous User | September 27, 2001 05:08PM |
|
Anthony | September 27, 2001 05:56PM |
|
Don Holeman | September 27, 2001 07:22PM |
|
R. Avry Wilson | September 28, 2001 02:10AM |
|
Anonymous User | September 28, 2001 04:28AM |
|
Anthony | September 28, 2001 06:32AM |
|
Anonymous User | September 28, 2001 07:52AM |
|
Anthony | September 28, 2001 09:18AM |
|
ISHMAEL | September 28, 2001 08:29AM |
|
Anonymous User | September 28, 2001 08:45AM |
|
ISHMAEL | September 28, 2001 12:45PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.