Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Kat wrote:
> ... I'm not concerned ..... your trains have a
> habit of derailing .....maybe you should put more
> "educated" work into them. ...
>
> Actually this is a veiled insult
Actually, it isn't. It's a perfectly accurate comment about the content of many of your posts here.
> as I am sure a
> lot of those on this board, and I am not saying
> all, can even comprehend the geometry
It doesn't matter whether anyone here can "comprehend the geometry" or not; in fact, I think most people are capable of grasping that such-and-such a set of points on the landscape incorporates such-and-such a geometric figure, or associated figures.
> so saying I
> am not using educated work to derive my answers is
> indeed totally untrue.
You're twisting what Kat said. She was referring to education by means of basic research: reading books and papers, finding out what factors underlay such-and-such a period of AE civilization, etc. etc. She was not referring to geometric constructions ... indeed, there would have been little point in her making such an implication, as there is no evidence that the AE used such constructions to set out the various monuments on the Giza Plateau.
> The math and the geometry is there.
I'm sure it is! (Or not ... some of your proposed layouts are apparently in doubt, but I leave disputing the relevant technicalities to others). But it doesn't mean that the AE
intended it to be there ...
> The Builders used
> basic ratios
You have textual evidence that the placing of the monuments on the Giza Plateau incorporated basic ratios?
> and just becuase you can not
> comprehend how it was done
Once again: I'm sure that Kat (along with many other people here) is perfectly capable of grasping basic geometric principles and applications.
does not mean it wasn't
> done using the amazing geometrical framework I am
> laying out, since the evidence is staring us in
> the face.
No ... all that's staring us in the face is the endless succession of geometric constructions with which you've been relentlessly presenting us over the past few years.
> Every day new pieces are added to the
> puzzle
Every day, you construct another one ...
> and now an agreed upon fact
Ah, right? Does this mean that you've finally found contemporary textual evidence supporting your theory? Fantastic! Please show it to us ... We can't wait to see.
> and autocadded
> and trigonomically proven fact
Evidenced by AE texts or papyri ... ??
that the distance
> from center of P3 north to an extension of south
> side of P2 equals EXACTLY the distance from center
> of P3 to North East corner of P2 sets up the
> interior pentagram.
>
> It is all coming together and eventually it will
> be proven correct.
> I said most of what Egyptology proposes is
> guesswork.
Educated guesswork …
> Mine is simply trigonometry and
> geometry and they can not tell untruths
The truths that they state are basic mathematical and geometric ones – i.e., that it’s
possible to construct geometric figures connecting certain sites, etc. etc. etc. It’s
possible. It doesn’t mean that it was
intended that way. One of the many reasons why your work is fundamentally flawed is that it confuses possibility with purpose.
> nor can
> they can they be made to be called guesswork. It
> adds up or it doesn't. In this case ... it does.
But there mere fact of the existence of geometric constructions doesn’t of itself prove that anyone wanted to put them there …
> So very, very simple. Using south base of Pyramid
> 2 extend lines to vertical line of The Giza
> Hexagon. Join these points to south point of large
> circle.
>
> Voila ... The Great Pyramid.
Yet again: you have contemporary textual evidence that the AE designed it this way?
Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at
Rules and Guidelines
hallofmaatforum@proton.me