Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've stated yourself above at 01:26pm that you
> only think the 104m is 'probably' the current
> height, therefore you do not know, therefore your
> methodology is flawed.


The fact that I said "probably" indicates the level of certainty available. Your statement, that because I said "probably" somehow shows I am wrong, is implying that the 104m current height is definitely wrong. That is the flawed methodology... and it isn't mine.


>
> In addition, the star shafts are indeed star
> shafts, and are orientated to allow the pharaoh's
> soul to ascend to the northern and southern
> regions of the sky, which they thought were
> important. That's what it says in the Pyramid
> Texts, which you chose to ignore entirely in
> typical extreme skeptic fashion.
>



If you wish to keep repeating disproven bunk, then be my guest. I won't stop you... I'll just keep correcting you.

The star shaft hypothesis has been proven wrong. JHA, 38, 2007. It's over. Quoting dead professors won't bring it back, change the facts, or make it rational.



> You started with a pre-conceived conclusion, and
> ignored the most important texts of all because
> they didn't agree with your conclusions.



That is not true. Period.

I used the texts that were available to the builders of the pyramids...not texts that weren't written for centuries afterwards... in some cases, demonstrably so. That would be a logical, appropriate methodology. The one you cite is neither appropriate nor logical.



>
> This is classic case of "tendency criticism", a
> flawed methodology originating in 19th century
> Germany. You decide the tendency, then shape the
> evidence around the theory.


As I've said before, adopting the language of rational science does not make your disproven conclusions correct.





>
> Thank goodness for Petrie and others who tied the
> interpretations to the fact.


He was wrong on many counts. Time has moved on in the last century, as has proper research, surveying and analysis. People have been digging and translating since Petrie was in Egypt. Denying that, or the developments in the field since then, is another example of severely flawed methodology.



>
> My methodology is quite correct, and to date I
> still consider that there is no definitive value
> for the design slope of the Red Pyramid precisely
> BECAUSE there are so many conflicting figures.
>



The only "conflicting figures" come from incomplete surveys. The most complete survey shows 45 degrees. Why should it be any different? It works out to 22/7 in some way? If so, wouldn't that be exactly what I said, allowing the conclusion to drive the evidence?

You see, I don't care what the angle is. I don't really think the Egyptians did, either. It was easy to build, fast and aesthetically pleasing. There's no evidence it was designed for anything else.


Anthony

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