Quote

Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote:AS: Meaningless and potentially deceptive
> question.
>
> SC: I shall ignore your inference here, Anthony.

AS: Ignoring the facts does not change them.

SC: “Facts”? What facts do you know of that are qualified with the adverb “Potentially”? Once again, Anthony, your logic fails you.

Quote

AS: Good history is based on probabilities,
> not possibilities.
>
> SC: Except the core of my question concerns itself
> with a question of geometry, not history.

AS: What is possible at one site has no bearing on what is probable at another. You are making statements about historical sites that have geometry as their foundation (your statements, that is, and not the sites). You are still talking about historical sites. How geometry is applied differs based on context.

SC: Sites that possess an easily observed underlying design imperative (i.e. a geometrical arrangement such as a circle) does not automatically mean that other sites cannot possess an underlying design imperative that is not so instantly or easily discernable. Such an underlying design imperative may exist but has not yet been uncovered.

Quote

> Furthermore, my question is clearly qualified with
> an 'IF' statement i.e. hypothetical.

AS: Irrelevant. The answer you were attempting to force is what matters.

SC: “Irrelevant”? What - because YOU say so? I hardly think so. It was a simple, straightforward answer I was seeking from Hermione to an equally simple question. And I note she has still failed to provide an answer but has opted for others to answer on her behalf.

Quote

Quote:AS: Secondly, finding geometric
> coincidences within geometric srructures only
> proves that you can see them...
>
> SC: I do not doubt this, Anthony. But I don't
> doubt either that the geometric circle of
> Stonehenge was absolutely intended - it is NO
> coincidence.

AS: Of course not. The archaeology supports it. Further excavations have found the sites of missing stones, as well as (I think) 54 post holes in a circle around the site.

What you are suggesting is that we can take as few as four points and create a circle. That is incorrect.

SC: No, Anthony – you are incorrect. Because it is possible to determine the size and orientation of a circle from only THREE non-linear points, not four as you stated. A circle like this, for example:

[www.scottcreighton.co.uk]

Note how the centre of the circle is within a whisker of the centre of Khafre's pyramid and also how the Great Sphinx somehow also finds itself on the circle's edge. Intriguing, don't you think? Coincidence? I really don't consider it so.

Quote

> The point here is that geometric
> patterns can indeed be the result of simple
> coincidence but there are other geometric patterns
> that are clearly intentional.

AS: In fact, the more complicated the pattern, the more likely it is to be coincidental. If you add in the fact that the culture in question has no evidence to suggest they are aware of the concepts that are supposedly "encoded" in the geometry, then you have a complete non-starter, from a theoretical standpoint.

SC: There’s nothing complicated about the “pattern” or underlying design imperative below:

[www.scottcreighton.co.uk]

Quote

>SC: The trick is
> knowing the difference and only through an
> exhaustive analysis of the geometry of a
> particular site/monument(s) will we have a chance
> to determine this one way or another.

AS: Untrue. The geometric analysis should be the last step. Start with the culture and what they were doing at the time they built the structure. Then, if there are any questions left, you look to other non-traditional methods (such as geometry, astronomy or geology) to explain the anomalies.

The structures at Giza you are attempting to analyze with geometry have no such anomalies.

SC: Is that so, Anthony? Well what’s your explanmation for these geometric anomalies at Giza?

[www.scottcreighton.co.uk]

And here’s a possible solution for you to consider:

[www.scottcreighton.co.uk]

Quote

AS: They don't need to be analyzed with a protractor, autocad program, or aerial photographs.

SC: But as the Stonehenge plan reconstructed by Dr Stukeley demonstrates, the use of such mathematical tools and techniques can allow us to determine a site’s underlying design imperative.

Quote

SC: > So, in my
> book, the work of Legon, Taylor, Chase, Barone is
> to be applauded.


AS: But for those who actually understand the culture in question, the works you cite don't have any real value.

SC: From the culture in question:

"O King, you are this great star, the companion of Orion(sAH)... the sky has born you with Orion (sAH)... [PT882-3]

"The king has come that he may glorify Orion (sAH)..." [PT 925]

"The Duat has grasped your hand at the place where Orion (sAH) is... [PT802]

"May you (the King) ascend to the sky, may the sky give birth to you like Orion (sAH)... [PT2116]

"Live and be young beside your father (Osiris), beside Orion (sAH) in the sky..." [PT186]

And more Orion in the design:

[www.scottcreighton.co.uk]

Quote

SC: > Far from being the much derided
> 'spiro-spaghetti', such analysis might just
> uncover something everyone else has overlooked.

AS: Again, whatever the spaghetti shows is irrelevant. The "mysteries" the geometric analyses attempt to answer aren't really mysteries at all. They're only mysteries to people who haven't studied the subject long enough to know the real

SC: So, I’ll ask again – what’s your answer to this mystery? From your statement above, you obviously know.

[www.scottcreighton.co.uk]

Quote

AS answers. If you find your work ignored, it's because it deserves it.

SC: Hate to be the bearer of bad news, Anthony but my work is far from ignored.

SC