I wrote, ‘But surely you only say this proposed drilling through the second block is "a pointless desecration" because you believe that you know what lies beyond it, i.e. core masonry?

You write, ‘I do not "believe I know". The evidence and logic fully support what we know.’

Okay, let me put it this way, you theorize that there is only core masonry behind the blocks in question.
Theorize: Construct a theory about; suppose by way of theory. (NSOED).
No matter how you word it, Anthony, no matter how logical it may be, no matter how persuasive your evidence may be, the fact remains that until a physical examination is carried out to determine what lies beyond these blocks it remains strictly a theory – and therefore a matter of personal reasoned belief (as distinct from a matter of faith).


I wrote, ‘According to your theory this drilling is unnecessary.’

You reply, ‘It doesn't matter whose theory it is. Please stop making this personal.’

I am not making it ‘personal’, Anthony.
Firstly, I assume that you have not flagrantly filched this theory from somebody else.
Secondly, I refer to your theory as ‘your theory’ in much the same way that I refer to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution instead of The Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection.
Now, if you don’t want this theory to be known or referred to as yours, then use a pseudonym or pass it onto somebody else (and let them have the credit for it), or, better still, give your theory a title.


You write, ‘You, and "many others" have had sufficient time to research what I presented. You, and "many others" have, apparently, failed to do so.’

I have yet to see a copy of your presentation, let alone read it!
I have asked you many times for details of it, only to be put off with excuses about delays with the publisher, and the like.
What is the reality here, Anthony?
Is your presentation available in full to all and sundry, or is it ‘in the hands of a publisher’ or some such, and very much ‘under wraps’?
If the former, where can I find a copy?
If the latter, when will it be published?


I see you have posted to Hermione, ‘The abstract has been available for well over a year, here on this board. The fact that people have not chosen to investigate the answer themselves in that time, and amass their own case for or against the theory, is no reason to advocate the damaging of the structure.’

So now we at MaaT who wish to read and properly discuss your theory have to make do with an abstract!
How can anybody be reasonably expected to discuss with and without you your theory when you are not prepared to let them have the complete paper?
It’s like studying the dimensions of Khufu’s pyramid with data from Kingsland instead of Petrie.


You write, ‘Those who are familiar with the subject matter have found no objection to the theory.’

Odd, I recall what little material leaked onto these Forums after your presentation in September ’96 as coming in for some stick from a number of then regular posters.
Also, I find it rather telling that on your web site you write:
“In my presentations to groups on the subject of the small shafts inside Khufu's pyramid at Giza, one thing that seems to get universal approval is my set of methodological benchmarks I created for my own theories on the subject.”
No universal approval for the theory itself, then.


You continue, ‘Those who are familiar with the subject matter have even suggested further evidence that clearly supports the theory.’

Well, bully for them.


You continue, ‘It really is that obvious a solution when one understands the subject matter, or has taken the time to familiarize him or herself with the evidence from the culture in question.’

Hmmm, has it not occurred to you that there are an awful lot of people who understand the subject matter (no doubt some more than you do) and have familiarised his- or herself with ‘the evidence from the culture in question’ and arrived at a conclusion different to yours?


You write, ‘Drilling holes in the blocks will not be "the only" test. No further testing is really needed. Cultural and contextual analysis is what is required, based upon the study of all the pyramids and other mortuary structures from ancient Egypt.’

But, Anthony, you claim by implication to have done all the ‘Cultural and contextual analysis’ required!
How else do you justify telling everybody right now that no drilling is required?


You write, ‘This idea that somehow what lies on the other side of a 9cm block of stone will change what we know to be true about Egyptian spirituality, cosmology and cosmography is really rather silly.’

I’ve been waiting for you to come up with this nonsense.
Nobody here, as far as I can tell, is suggesting for one moment that there could be something on the other side of the block that ‘will change what we know to be true about Egyptian spirituality, cosmology and cosmography’.
What is being suggested is that your theory (and others with the same conclusion) that the blocks are simply mundane plugs, and there is only core masonry beyond the blocks may, repeat may, prove to be wrong.
The most fanciful theory I know of (outside of the realms of the extreme Alternatives with, for example, Flying Saucers hidden inside the Pyramid) is that there is a chamber of some description beyond the blocks.
Though I describe this theory as fanciful, I don’t find it entirely implausible.
And I don’t imagine for one moment that such a discovery would even dent the current consensuses on Egyptian spirituality, cosmology and cosmography.


You write, ‘For example, I didn't predict the second plug stone

I DID!!!!
Sadly, I didn’t do it publicly…


You write, ‘I don't need to tear up a monument to prove I'm right.’
… Drilling holes for a Fox TV special is wrong. Drilling holes for National Geographic is no better. Quelling the curiosity of the voluntarily ignorant masses is no excuse for damaging ancient monuments.’

Methinks you are looking at and responding to all this a little too emotionally to be in any way objective about it.
I would hardly describe drilling a few millimetres wide hole in an inaccessible to people block of stone as tearing up a monument.


You write, ‘For example, Stadelmann has claimed to have identified hieroglyphic inscription on the outer stone of the northern shaft. Those hieroglyphs are artifacts as well. Had Stadelmann missed them, it is likely nobody would have noticed, and the drill would have chopped them up and they'd be lost forever.

Well, if Stadelmann is right, then all that is needed here is for the ‘hieroglyphs’ to be filmed and photographed before drilling starts.
And have you not wondered why what you say is a mundane plug should have a heiroglyph on it?
Perhaps it says: Death Will Come On Swift Wings To He Who Drills Holes Through This block.


You write, ‘What else is going to be destroyed? Why should it be? Should we drill the side of Tut's burial mask, just to see how thick the gold is in various spots?

Now you are letting your objectivity fly out of the window, Anthony.


You write, ‘I wouldn't feel particularly good about somebody dropping an artesian well through my father's casket, thank you.’

Which directly brings us back to: when does tomb robbing become archaeology.
There is also the factor of “Within Living Memory” to consider.


You write, ‘There's no rational reason for this to go on. The theory, logic, evidence and context give us our answer. We don't need invasive, damaging excavation to confirm what we already know.’

Unless this drilling takes place your theory, along with all the others (including mine) will remain just that – a theory.
As for ‘damaging’, please do tell us here what this damage will consist of and how it will be of physical detriment to the Pyramid.


You write, ‘I certainly won't try to stop you from having the last word.’

Well, that is nice of you, Anthony; thank you - I am flattered by your generosity of spirit.

MJ