Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
> > Sorry to be a nuisance, Anthony, but you
> haven’t
> > said what in your opinion the primary purpose
> of
> > the Queen’s Chamber was.
>
>
> You're right.
>
>
>
> > Any chance of you coming back with an answer?
> It
> > would be appreciated – and not only by me, I
> am
> > sure.
>
>
> Snowball. Hell. You get the picture....lol.

The only picture I am receiving at the moment is one of you prevaricating like fury.
Now, I can understand (just about) your doing this if it is a case of your having a GP theory awaiting publication in some learned journal, or whatever, and don’t wish for its details to be made known prior.
What I fail to understand is your seeming reluctance to actually clearly state on this Forum why you are ‘unable’ to as yet provide any details of your theory.
You are arguably under no obligation to reveal anything at all about your theory.
However, I do feel that this issue has reached the stage at which you either put up or shut up.
I, for one, grow tired of your answering questions with meaningless answers.
For example, I wrote:

> > I’m not at all sure what you have in mind
> when you
> > say “the landing area for the Grand Gallery.
> > Are you referring to the north (lowermost)
> end of
> > the Gallery, the south (uppermost) end of
> the
> > Gallery, or some point between the two?

To which you respond with:
> You may not be sure, but you guess well!

But I don’t want to guess what you mean by “the landing area for the Grand Gallery”.
I want to know precisely what you mean.
I see no reason for you to not answer my simple, straight forward question.

Then we have my:
> > Then what is it about the design of the
> interior
> > of Khufu’s pyramid that makes these ‘shafts’
> > necessary?

To which you reply:
> Study a hundred pyramids and you'll figure that
> out. Seriously, it becomes quite obvious when you
> do.

Why should I ‘figure it out’ if, as you imply, you already know the answer?
Is this “find out for yourself” attitude of yours really suited to the purpose and spirit of this Forum, I ask myself…

Moving on.
Regarding your suggestion that the Grand Gallery “would have been modified into a 2nd chamber”, and your then proposing 4 royal cubits as the maximum width.
Why only 4rcs?
The widths of the three chambers run North-South, and their lengths run East-West.
I would have thought it reasonable that a chamber ‘incorporated’ into the Grand Gallery would follow the same pattern – in which case we end up with a chamber with your maximum width of 4rcs and a length of not more than 4rcs.
Hmmm. Doesn’t work does it…
If a chamber had been built in/into the Grand Gallery, then everything points to it being at least as large (in floor plan) as the Queen’s Chamber, and its east wall would have coincided with or been within 1 royal cubit west of the east lowermost wall of the Grand Gallery.

On the Subterranean Chamber (SC) I wrote:
> > Are we really expected to believe that Khufu
> > needed such a vast burial chamber (especially
> as
> > you appear to me to think that the
> appreciably
> > smaller Queen’s Chamber and King’s Chamber
> were
> > each deemed adequate)?

You reply,
> If it was going to be below ground, then
> apparently the answer is "yes".

But has it not occurred to you that the SC might not have been intended to be or act as a burial chamber?
Not knowing what – other than a burial chamber - this Chamber might have been for does not add anything to your ‘contingency’ theory.
Arguing that the SC was intended as a burial chamber because we cannot think of anything else it could have been gets us nowhere.



I wrote,
> > It makes no sense to argue that the SC was
> > unfinished because it wasn’t needed as a
> burial
> > chamber.

You respond:
> It makes sense from an Egyptian mortuary
> perspective. No other sense is needed.

Could you elaborate on this?
As it stands it’s very much a “Because the Bible says so” kind of statement.


I wrote,
> > I seriously doubt that the seeming
> abandonment of
> > the SC has anything to do with your proposed
> > contingency plans for the king dying before
> his
> > burial chamber proper (the King’s Chamber?)
> was
> > ready.

You reply,
> You are welcome to provide an alternate idea, but
> as an abandoned contingency burial chamber in case
> of the king's early demise I can assure you it
> fits both logical and culturally into the Fourth
> Dynasty.

That’s very nice of you.
Sorry to disappoint everybody but beyond: it was never intended to act as a ‘contingency’ burial chamber, I haven’t the faintest idea what the SC was intended for.


You write,
> You have demonstrated quite a bit of ingenuity
> with your research, MJT. You're up to this little
> puzzle... especially now that you have a much
> bigger clue than I did when I started. I didn't
> know the shafts were canals. You do.

I have enough puzzles stemming from my own GP theory; I don’t really want any more, thank you very much…
Straight answers to straight questions is what I would like from you, Anthony.

I do not know that the shafts “were canals”, anymore than you do.
You hypothesise that these shafts were ‘canals’.
Others here (and elsewhere?) disagree with your hypothesis.
Me?
I haven’t the foggiest idea what the shafts are.

MJ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2007 05:09AM by MJ Thomas.