Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Brilliant post ? Well I am sure that is a matter
> of opinion.

Certainly is ...

Kat wrote:
>>" that we are
>> foolish? Ignorant? Simple? Childlike? Gullible?
>> Stupid? You surely are not being polite or
> well-intentioned towards your fellow posters here.
> ...

Don wrote:
> You use words I have never, ever used in regards
> to any of those on this board.

You've implied it often enough, Don.

Don wrote:
> I simply state that
> no one in Egyptology has ever tried to figure out
> Giza using math and geometry because you are
> convinced The Ancient Egyptians never used these
> formulae. Well before it was just Giza and now
> there is a definite link between Dashur and Giza
> and the same simple formulae are always there, 1,2
> square root of 5 and 1,1.272 and 1.618 as well as
> obvious ratios of 5 to 6 and 6 to 7 and ofcourse 5
> to 7.

You've not taken on board anything Kat said, have you?

Let me remind you:

Kat:
>It has nothing whatsoever to do with not having answers or not having knowledge but simply from just being plain out and out tired of the constant onslaught on lines and circles and triangles. When you have geometric shapes laid out in a complex you can make almost ANYTHING fit them that you want to. Its merely deciding which points you're going to deem important that day.

Don:
> I actually think it is you who do the Ancient
> Egyptians a dis-service by ignoring the mounting
> and mountain of geometrical evidence but that is
> fine you are free to believe the total speculation
> that the change in angle was becuase of structural
> difficulties but it is simply speculation and
> "educated" guesswork. Your failure to admit that
> this is what it is is your downfall.

No, Don. It is your failure to realize that it's a characteristic of geometry that (quoting Kat again) "you can make almost ANYTHING fit" that will be your downfall.

Don wrote:
> It is all guesswork as I have stated because there
> is no proof one way or the other of what the
> intentions were or are. It was Anthony's favourite
> reason for claiming I was wrong. Show intent and
> in a lot of Egypology this has never been proven.
>
> Regardless the geometry is there

Yes, of course you can construct geometric figures around the various points on the Giza plateau (and many other sites, for that matter)!

It doesn't mean, though, that the various monuments were set out in accordance with a pre-planned design ...

But why should I - or anyone else - bother telling you this? You'll never take any notice ...

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me