AS: The "raison d'etre" for the board is not about satellite photos manipulated in autocad programs with spaghetti dropped all over it.

SC: Don't use, can't use, never have used AutoCad or MicroStation. MS Powerpoint - okay, guilty as charged! But it's so much FUN! Don't like spaghetti either, though my kids do. BTW, no matter what you say, the declared raison d'etre of this board is about 'Weighing the Evidence of Alternative History'.

AS: This is about ancient Egypt. Your work has nothing to do with ancient Egypt, and everything to do with psychological projection and ethnocentrism.

SC: Wrong. I accept - and I know I have told you this on more than one occasion - that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty constructed these monuments for their own cultural/religious beliefs. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with this. How many times do I have to tell you this?

AS: Your belief that somebody in ancient Egypt must have seen it that way is only that: a belief. It has no foundation in fact or evidence.

SC: And your 'belief' that the pyramids were built in isolation without reference to an overall design is based in fact? Puh-leez! This belief has more holes in it than a dart-board! The AEs worked from ancient plans that - even in their day - came from great antiquity.

...These vast edifices [Kom Ombo, Efu and Esna] in their huge proportions, their unstinted use of sandstone and granite, their elaborate floriated capitals, their astronomical ceilings, their scrupulous detail and technical triumphs, have a solemn grandeur. They were built according to an architectural plan which was supposed to have been revealed in a codex that fell from heaven at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep. The most complete of them is the temple of the falcon god Horus at Edfu, built between 237 and 57BC, the most perfectly preserved monument of the ancient world. Its many inscriptions have bequeathed a wealth of information about the founding of such temples, their constrcution and use, the daily ritual, the festivals and their dates, the duties of the various priests, even the dimensions of each chamber, its name and purpose, besides myths of very ancient origin."

Aldred, 'The Egyptians, P32

If there existed plans from the days of Imhotep for the temples of Egypt, do you really believe it is impossible that there could not have existed plans for the pyramids? Somehow I really don't think so. They built Giza from a sacred plan, Anthony. They virtually are telling us as much.

AS: Personal beliefs are off topic here.

SC: Tell that to the AEs - they believed the design came in a codex that fell from heaven!

AS: Secondly, if you read carefully, you'll see the banner reads "Weighing the Evidence for Alternative History". Since you have presented absolutely no evidence for your baseless speculations, your posts have a second strike against them.

SC: What I present as my evidence, many on this board will not even look at, including yourself! What's the problem? Scared I might be right?

AS: "Your belief doesn't convince us in the least", we can never proceed with any conversation whatsoever, within the general guidelines of the board.

SC: Well, how could you possibly? To do this you actually have to look at what it is I am presenting. By your own admission in previous posts, you have not done this. So how can I possibly convince you? YOu are being entirely illogical, Anthony.

AS: Ronald is right on several grounds. You can't change that with strawman arguments about what you claim he is arguing, versus what he has actually said.

SC: No, Anthony. Ronald is wrong on so many different levels it really does beggar belief. I am not claiming any so-called strawman argument here at all such as I have seen from yourself in the past. What Ronald actually accused me of was making up my theories 'on-the-fly' from discussions here on Ma'at. I regarded his accusation as quite offensive and demonstrated to him that he was quite wrong in his accusation. I asked him to retract it and still, to this date, he has not had the decency to do so. And you consider him 'right'? Oh well - I guess that says it all.

Regards to you,

Scott Creighton