Hello Anthony,

You write, ‘It's not "modern thinking", it's logical argumentation.’

Okay. I’ll take your word for it.


You write, ‘If you are offering a theory, the proof must be logical within its context.’

Er, okay. If you say so.
Point is, Anthony, I have no understanding of your ‘Logic’, so, um, logically I can’t really argue with it.


You write, ‘If, as in this example, we say the slots had a specific purpose of holding back the blocks, then there shouldn't be extraneous slots in obscure areas within the gallery.
There should be the right number of slots for the job...otherwise, they were designed for a different job.’

But aren’t you here assuming that there was never more than three blocks stored on the Gallery floor?
How do you know that there was not the right number of blocks for the actual number of slots?
It has been suggested by a number of researchers that the entire Ascending Passage was filled with blocks, though it is thought that only the first three were granite and the rest limestone.


You write, ‘Let's put it this way: why would they need anything to hold back the blocks?’

I don’t know about the physics of the various factors involved here (weight, angle of incline, inertia, friction, resistance, that sort of stuff) so I can’t give you a practical answer.
However, this may have been the case for the builders, too.
Perhaps they knew that the granite blocks should stay put on the floor, but – and quite sensibly so IMO – they decided not to take any chances and added wooden beams as restrainers for extra security.
Whether they actually got round to actually doing any of this is, of course, debateable.


You write, ‘If one is to claim they were there to hold back the blocks, then one must explain why they needed one on top of the Great Step. Clearly, the fact that a pair of slots appear ON the step, and not just BELOW the step, indicate these slots were constructed for a function that was independent of the slope on which they were constructed.’

Sorry, Anthony, answering this would mean my giving away details of my hypothesis on how the interior of this Pyramid was designed, and it is not in my interest to do that yet.
Given your own circumstances (theory/publisher/delays) I am sure that you will understand and respect my position on this.


You write, ‘Now, there is ONE piece of evidence that you could use in favor of the "only using every other slot" concept, but it is easily overweighed by the factors I mentioned above. This fact is that every OTHER slot is longer than the ones in between. They alternate in length. Although clearly not a sign of every other slot being used for something, it does have to be taken into account by any theory offered to explain these enigmatic features in an otherwise fairly easily understandable pyramid.’

Are you familiar with the ideas of Borchardt and Goyon concerning the Grand Gallery?
If not, then please do bone up on them; I’m sure you will find them most interesting.
I happen to think they are both wrong, but that’s beside the point.

MJ