Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > simply too convoluted to be considered
> > even remotely as a plausible explanation for
> the
> > planning of the King's Chamber, Antechamber,
> > etc..
>
> MJ:
> It’s not convoluted in the least

Clive, unless and until you take the trouble to explain step-by-step how the architect got from a ‘blank page’ to the dimensions you claim were intended, then your efforts will continue to appear to me and others as too convoluted to be plausible.


> …and who said they
> planned the Kc and Antechamber assembly to
> demonstrate simple math ratios?

You did.
You are the one who describes square roots as simple maths ratios.
You are the one who has presented a series of drawings and calculations that you believe prove your contention that these square roots were used in the designing of the King's Chamber, Antechamber, etc.


> I informed you that the Kc contained a large
> amount of knowledge that others have yet to
> realize

You do not appear to me to have given in your posts to date any examples of this “large amount of knowledge that others have yet to realize.” – unless, of course, you are referring to your diagrams concerning the square roots of certain numbers.


> You asked me to prove it...

Which to date you haven’t; but, then, no hypothesis on how a pyramid and its interior was designed can be proven without the original plans.


> to provide
> evidence. I did...

Layering a collection of lines and circles over the plan of an existing structure without explaining the sequence involved is not, IMO, evidence of intent.



> and now you don't have time?

I don’t have the time or the inclination to deal with your constant prevarications, Clive.
Show me how, in your opinion, the architect got from a ‘blank page’ to the plans and elevations you believe intentionally contain the square roots of certain numbers.
Then I will happily work through it and discuss it with you.


> You
> opt out by claiming it convoluted?

I am not ‘opting out’, Clive.
I am asking you to present a sequence of planning to break through the impasse that you, IMO, have created.


> What is your
> research restricted to…addition and subtraction?

My research is not at all restricted, Clive.
As I have explained to you in previous posts, over the decades I have worked through a range of possible mathematical explanations – from the sublime to the ridiculous…


> These builders were intelligent…they built Giza,
> not for fun, but for a reason, an excellent
> reason…

My arguing that the planning of the pyramids did not necessarily involve sophisticated mathematics and advanced geodesic and astronomic knowledge does not mean that I think that the AEs were a bunch of simian simpletons.

On the contrary, Clive, it is folks such as yourself who actually belittle these ancient peoples by refusing to credit them with the wit and intelligence to achieve what they did using only the most basic of mathematical skills and building technology.


> no child’s play permitted…they threw the
> book of knowledge at it…and it all stuck !

Do you not find it frustrating that to date you appear to be the only person alive who is able to read this “book of knowledge”?


> I was set on posting new material for you. I guess
> you are content doing what it is that you have
> continued to do for the last 30 years.

I do wish you would stop being so infuriatingly patronising, Clive.

If you explain step-by-step how the architect got from a ‘blank page’ to the King's Chamber and Antechamber, etc., square root based dimensions you claim were intended, then perhaps we can get somewhere.

The ball is in your court, Clive - play it or take it home… the choice is yours.

Regards,

MJ