Hello Martin,

You write, 'On this I must disagree: Tompkins IMO is a perniciously bad book, precisely because it gives the impression of being quite a good one.
All Tompkins did was recycle Pyramidology in a form palatable to the 1970s - which meant, very largely, bowdlerising the Biblicism (which effectively falsifies the entire story).'

I can't help feeling that you and I are looking at two different books.
I have next to me a hardback copy of Tompkin's book that I bought in the early Seventies.
There is comparatively little about Pyramidology in it.
Of course Tompkin's mentions Greaves, Newton, Taylor, Davidson, Rutherford, Piazzi Smyth, and the Edgar brothers. No history of the Great Pyramid can reasonably exclude them. But nowhere does Tompkins show any support for their Pyramidology-based theories.
Actually, my impression is very much that Tomkins does not advocate any GP theories of any kind.

Could it be that you have in mind Peter Lemesurier's The Great Pyramid Decoded, first published, I believe, in the late Seventies.
Lemesurier's book certainly fits in with your "recycle Pyramidology in a form palatable to the 1970s" comment.

Regards,

MJ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2007 09:45AM by MJ Thomas.