MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Anthony,
>
> You write, 'Your claims do not change the nature
> of my correction of the question.'
>
> Well, you may think that you have wisely and
> intelligently corrected my question but in reality
> you have done nothing more than avoid answering
> it.
>
>


I've evaded nothing. I've clarified the proper questioning in which you should be engaging to actually ascertain the value of your "discovery".

For example, asking myself if I have the right theory for nuclear fission by demanding people tell me the color of my shirt will not really help me establish the validity of my nuclear theory, will it?

I clarified the question so as to make the weighing of your theory more meaningful.



> You write, 'Everything you have described could be
> a coincidence you found in a collection of
> systemic artifacts inadvertently created by the
> builders using a simple set of tools with standard
> measures.'
>
>
> Care to tell the world what this 'simple set of
> tools' consisted of?




I have... repeatedly. Cubits, digits and seqeds.

They are the most culturally evidenced, most logical measuring system used to build the pyramids. All ratios and other calculations are going to have certain artifactual qualities as a result of the system being used to create the structure.

Remember when Hoagland found the "cities" on Mars? Large areas of what looked like city blocks? Well, as it turns out, the photographs he was using were made with a reconstructed set of pixels that, when enlarged to the extreme that Hoagland enlarged them, of course looked like a perfect grid pattern. They were systemic artifacts.

We have no idea whether your 40 "points" in your data set that you've found are just artificats of the "cubit/seqed" system they used to build the pyramid.



>
> What are the 'standard measures' you refer to?
>


Cubits.


> What are their lengths?


A cubit long.


>
> I presume you are well aquainted with the actual
> dimensions of the interior of Khufu's pyramid
> (though your posts on the subject suggest that you
> aren't), so how about you demonstrate how this
> works by giving us an example?


I'm not the one trying to prove that 40 points out of thousands of possible combinations demonstrate intent. You are. You have to prove it. I don't have to disprove it. Your theory is irrelevant until you do.




>
> Or are you now going to argue that without the
> original plans we cannot know how it was planned?


I have offered my own ideas on this subject. We don't need to have a diagram to tell us how and why they built the pyramid. They left plenty of information for us to deduce that ourselves.

Of course, you can't do it with autocad or a calculator. Those things are entirely alien to Egyptian culture.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.