<HTML>ISHMAEL,
> 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.
We've gone way past that point. I've repeatedly explained what I perceive Krupp's argument to be and you've repeatedly failed to address that point. The shafts and entrance on the GP dictate its orientation - consequently Krupp has every right to claim that RBs OCT is upside down. That RB uses the shafts to bolster his case highlights the inconsistency in his own argument.
> 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.
You did no such thing. I erroneously referred to the OCT as a mirror image - that hardly proves that I failed to understand the concepts involved properly.
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.
You don't understand Krupp's argument as you still fail to see it's significance in relation to the OCT. You call it nonsense but the shafts in the GP show the AEs were aware of where up and down in the night sky was.
> 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. :-)
The argument centres around whether the AEs associated north on the ground with the position of the northern circumpolar stars. If the northern star shaft focuses on the circumpolar stars and the southern shaft on the stars in Orion's belt then doesn't it make sense to consider the northern face of the GP (where the shaft points) to be considered as up?
You don't understand this because you don't want to accept that Krupp has a valid point.
> 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.
Say what you like I think Krupp makes a valid point concerning the orientation of the pyramids in relation to the stars.
> 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)
How has it been countered? Last time I looked the discrepancy was much greater than being marginal and corrected by realignment to points that happen to fit a bit better.
> -------------
>
> > 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.
Ah you're certain that your intuition is correct. :-)
> 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.
You lack *proof* of anything even with a nominal statistical probability value.
> 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.
It doesn't remain to be seen at all. Even if the probability is zero the possibility that it may be due to chance is still there.
> 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.
I agree it's an astonishing coincidence. I've never said there is not a resemblance there.
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.
Has anybody claimed it is irrational? There are few Egyptologists (if indeed any) that give the OCT any validity. That's not to say they couldn't all be wrong just that none of them are convinced by RBs argument or that most of them just don't care. :-)
> I think my most basic goal is to end the atmosphere of
> contempt that clouds investigation of this matter.
I wonder where that cloud originated though?
Cheers,
Duncan</HTML>
