Yikes, l wake up this morning and find a war on the forum.

Warick you have taken my coffee table book analogy out of context, Ricke can see exactly what l meant and makes quite a humourous response (by the way, thinks for donating them to the charity shop, thats were l normally get them through:-)

Clearly excavation reports, Dieter Arnold, Petrie etc, are not coffee table books and l quote from them extensively, and yes l do have Dieters work and even quoted from it in my Faraun guide.

You mention peer review, l have contacted numerous Egyptologists to review my work; one nice feature of academia.edu is that one can see who reads your work and downloads it, and l can tell you that many household names have done so, but never respond. Frankly l despair of how Egyptology conducts itself,however l am heartened to see numerous other disciplines who have contacted me and welcomed my research, be it structural engineers, architects, geologists etc, at least these disciplines are more qualified to do a post mortem on the Bent.

Egyptologys research on these pyramids is derisory, clear example, how come it took Dormion only on his first day of work at the Meidum pyramid, to find a clearly walled up aperture that lead to the discovery of the relieving chambers. Clearly Egyptologists have been doing no thorough exploration, in short, they couldn't find a barn door if they walked into it!

Yet, you want want me to get these myopic experts to review my work, you are very naive, if you think peer/censor review will change the consensus view that Egyptology holds on these structures. Monniers work will get published as it does not upset the consensus narrative but reinforces it. In years to come Egyptologists will quote Monniers work along the lines of "thanks to Monniers analysis of the Meidum subsidiary pyramid, we have clear evidence that the builders of the Bent likewise began with a 60 degree pyramid" This is how Egyptology works, my amateur views will be placed in the section, pyramidiot studies.