<HTML>> I also understand it [Krupp's Argument] is nonsense. :-)
Then you don't really understand it. :-(
----------
If I don't understand it, read what I wrote and correct my misconceptions. I have now made two or three postings on the subject where I explain his [Krupp's] argument in depth.
I am puzzeled as to how is it that you can accuse me of misunderstanding Krupp when it was I who corrected your own misconceptions on the subject. How do you explain my understanding of the nuances of Krupp's argument that you yourself had missed? Yet you conclude that it is I who somehow fails to grasp what he has to say.
I say this without any condesention. It took me a LONG time to get my head around Krupp's position. It's not easy to understand it (at least, it wasn't for me).
I cut myself some slack in this however, as it is inherintly more difficult to understand in illogical position than it is to understand one that makes sense. :-)
It is common practice to conclude that someone who does not agree with one must lack understanding of the issues. It is more often true that real disagreement is possible in the face of the claims made.
Krupp's "argument" is utterly and completely unconvincing to me. It is the worst most ridiculous argument against the OCT.
Some examples of valid arguments:
The evidence for replanning.
The (pursuasive) argument against the relationship between pyramid scale and star magnitude.
The angle and distance errors for Menkeare's pyramid placement (this argument has now been countered by my investigations)
-------------
> I have no idea why the Egyptians did this - but I am certain
> now that they did.
Even without statistical proof?
-----------
Yes. But this is just my intuition based upon the numbers that I see. Many scientists are certain of many things in opposition to the claims of other no less learned investigators. But these *certainties* are of course preliminary. The debate continues and the possibility remains that contrary evidence will emerge.
-----------
> Though I currently lack the quantitative data to prove
> intent, I am personally quite confident that the results of
> an analysis will provide it.
Ah... Isn't that called fudging the effects of a predetermined outcome? No matter how much you want the OCT to be true that doesn't make it so.
------------
If the analysis of the probabilities does not support my current conclusions, I will have to admit that I lack the *proof* for the OCT I currenlty believe I have. That's why I am attempting to get an objective study done and have it published as an adendum to our paper.
No matter its conclusions, the analysis will most certainly provide strong evidence in favour of the OCT. Will it provide *proof?* That remains to be seen.
I am confident that anyone who looks at our results will be forced to conclude that what we have found is - in the very least - an ASTONISHING coincidence. Furthermore, the suposition that the positions of the Belt Stars influenced the design of the Giza complex will no longer be characterized by its opponents as "irrational" - even if they do not accept it as true.
I think my most basic goal is to end the atmosphere of contempt that clouds investigation of this matter. I believe that many of the alternative investigators deserve respect - even if thier arguments are in error. I give no less to Krupp.
ISHMAEL</HTML>
