Hello Anthony,

You write, ‘No contemporary text of which you are aware, that is.’

From this I infer that you are aware of such contemporary texts.
Well, as I am referring to contemporary texts that tell us how Khufu’s pyramid was planned/designed and built, I must be inferring wrongly because I have yet to read or hear of the existence of such material.
So to what contemporary texts do you allude, Anthony?


You write, ‘Since it is the most accurate demonstration of their skill, it would be illogical to assume that they could do better, but never displayed it at all anywhere in their structural record.’

But surely you are here assuming that the AEs intent was for a perfectly aligned 440royal cubits by 440rc square.
What if it wasn’t?
What if they were aiming for something different?
How sure can you be that what we see in the layout of the base of Khufu’s pyramid is not precisely what the architect intended?
How sure can you be that what we see in the layout of the base of any pyramid is not precisely what the architect intended?


I wrote, ‘Of course this pattern could be purely coincidental and mean nothing at all.
On the other hand…’

You reply, ‘That must be the logical conclusion when one lacks evidence of intent.’

One needs to look for evidence of intent, Anthony.
Have you tried my exercise?
Or are you not going to bother because you have already made up your mind that there is no evidence of intent here?


I wrote, ‘Instead of exercising your rule to avoid doing things unless you know the Dynasty IV Egyptians also did it that way, why not have a crack at this little exercise and see what you make of it?’

You reply, ‘You demonstrate to me that they could align something more closely to the cardinal directions than Khufu's pyramid, and I'll be happy to.’

I’m not a surveyor of any kind, Anthony, so the task is totally beyond me.
And I’m waiting for somebody who knows about surveying of any kind to demonstrate how the AEs did survey the base of Khufu’s pyramid, and not just how they might have done it.


You write, ‘Serious researchers don't have time to look at every coincidence that somebody with a CAD program can dream up.’

This clearly and loudly implies that anybody who uses a CAD program to study Giza is not a “serious researcher”.
No, surely you don’t mean this…
By this view, because I use a calculator to work out the various and varying gradients of the sloping passages in Khufu’s pyramid I am not a “serious researcher”.


You write, ‘… I think they intended it to be a square.
What do I win?’

Nothing, Anthony.
That you think they intended the base to be a square doesn’t mean its creators intended it to be.


You write, ‘Neither is correct. The FIRST question is: WOULD the 4th Dyn. AEs set out the pyramids and temples of Giza according to a vast, skillfully surveyed plan had they wanted to?"

I disagree.
The first question is ideally “could they have done it?”
If we quickly find from the available evidence that they couldn’t have done it, then we have no need to ask whether they did or not. .
Mind you, asking 'Would they' is a lot easier because then we don't have to look for evidence beyond what is immediately in front of us.


You write, ‘And the answer is culturally.. "no way". It directly contradicts the known purpose of the pyramids, as told to us by the pyramid builders themselves.”

I remind myself, Anthony, that it is your interpretation of the evidence that creates the contradiction.


You write, ‘Patterns in geometric diagrams can be found to suggest anything if one chooses to torture one's imagination long enough.’

And some patterns are glaringly obvious but we overlook them because we don’t expect them to be there.


I wrote, ‘*Please, please spare us the mindless rhetoric of the ilk: “Well, it’s also possible the Great
Pyramid was built by little green men from Atlantis who worshipped a god called von Daniken”
It doesn’t work, Anthony.
It never has and it never will.’

You reply, ‘But the argument is no different than any one that starts with speculation or coincidence as its foundation. You can't change that by asking people not to point it out.’

It’s about degree and plausibility, Anthony.


I wrote, ‘p.s. Please can we also be spared the "I do not know of/cannot think of a reason why they would do such a thing, therefore they did not do it" argument.
Thanks.’

You respond, ‘I never made such an argument. I find it rather insulting that you would purposefully misquote me in such a manner.
Please see the guidelines on quoting, or rather, misquoting people. [www.hallofmaat.com].’

I was not quoting you – I wasn’t quoting anybody.
It’s my description of a particular type of argument.
And it happens to be a type of argument I believe you fall back on a lot; usually along the lines of: you have no evidence for…
But this is purely my impression gained from my reading of your posts over the last couple of years.
Why you should find it in anyway insulting is beyond me.

MJ