Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you saying that because I said you don't know
> the height, because you said probably, that that
> means I am saying it definitely isn't 104m????


By saying that my "probably" is bad methodology, you are implying that you know it is wrong. Otherwise, my "probably" is perfectly acceptable as a qualified statement, and shows my careful determination to state what I know, versus what is only probable.



>
> Well that's simply and clearly yet another of many
> many flaws in your methodology and logic that
> consistently run through every thread and
> argument.


I'm not sure how your statement has any bearing on mine, actually. You haven't proven anything with fact or reason, just asserted that you have done so.


>
> Your or John Wall's articles change none of the
> facts,

Of course not. We elucidate them, organize them, and carefully examine whether they are actually facts or not, and whether they fit into the logical context of an historical theory.



> and cannot change the facts because they
> are correct.


You seem to have facts and theories mixed up. Facts are not "correct". They either exist or they do not. Theories are correct by virtue of their non-contradiction with known facts, or their logical structure that holds them together.




> The facts have been established on
> secure foundations by experts who applied correct
> methodology.



If you're talking about star shafts, then you are wrong. I cannot change that. The facts exist, the logic is irrefutable. Ergo, the argument against star shafts stands.



>
> To reject the Pyramid Texts when trying to
> understand the Old Kingdom pharaonic eschatology
> is unbelievably bad methodology, verging on the
> dangerous, and should be condemned at every
> opportunity.



I didn't say we reject the Pyramid Texts when trying to understand Old Kingdom pharaonic eschatology.

First, there were no pharaohs in the Old Kingdom, so your premise is impossible. But, getting past your semantics, the "Old Kingdom" spanned nearly a thousand years and the Pyramid Texts do not show up until the second half. If we wish to understand things from the first half, using knowledge and cultural elements for which we have little or no evidence of its existence in the first half is, as you say, "unbelievably bad methodology, verging on the dangerous, and should be condemned at every opportunity."

An hyperbolic example of your logic would be to boldly assert that the Revolutionary War between England the fledgling United States was fought with machine guns, jets and nuclear weapons. We have evidence that those weapons technologies existed just 170 years later, so why wouldn't they have been used 170 years earlier? See the problem? Of course we can even point to the use of gunpowder muskets (the forerunners of machine guns) hot air balloons (just a few years after the Revolutionary War) and other explosives as precursors to the atomic bomb... but that doesn't mean those technologies existed in their later forms that early in history.

Nobody has any business asserting the same kind of flawed reverse-engineering of the Pyramid Texts, simply to support a stellarist obsession with the Giza plateau. To do so prohibits one from finding the real reasons the Dynasty IV pyramid builders actually did what they did. The pyramids at Giza had nothing whatsoever to do with stars. They didn't aim at them. They weren't correlated to them. The cosmology of Dynasty IV provides sufficient explanation for their design, alignments and features without a single star being brought backwards from the much-later Pyramid Texts.



Anthony

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