Hello David,

To be honest with you, until I read your post I wasn’t entirely sure what it is about Stecchini’s appendix to Secrets of the Great Pyramid that makes me feel that the book would be better off without it.
I now see that it is very much as you write, ‘… it is left to the reader to work out if what he writes has any relevance to the GP.’

Thank you for the feedback and for drawing my attention to your 2nd June post (and I notice that Hermione has kindly provided a direct link to it; so my thanks to her, too ).

I’ve just cast an eye over your opening post, Jeff’s response, and your subsequent reply to Jeff.
Phew! I think it’s going to take me a while to assimilate it all.

There is one thing about Stecchini’s contribution to Secrets of the Great Pyramid, he gives details of Cole’s 1925 survey and that, for me, turned out to be extremely useful – so his efforts weren’t entirely wasted on me.
Until the recent advent of the Internet in my life (I’m a ‘Silver Surfer’ – well, I would be if I had any hair ) I had no access at all to things such as Cole’s paper Determination of the Exact Size and Orientation of the Great Pyramid of Gîza.

You write, ‘A good book is one that encourages people to look further. By this definition, Tompkins book is good.’

I couldn’t agree more; it certainly grabbed my attention and was partly responsible for my spending the last near three decades working out how the GP could have been designed (modesty prevents me from saying, ‘was designed’ ).

Anyway, after I’ve answered a post to me by C. Wayne concerning the King’s Chamber’s south shaft and course 104 (yes, that is a plug for my thread) I’ll have a crack at your June post.

Regards,

MJ