Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > MJ Thomas Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > 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
>
> How do you think they designed these
> structures...with a wet thumb stuck in the air and
> a whim of fancy to boot?

I really am at a loss to understand why you will not show step-by-step how the architect got from a blank page to the plans of the King's Chamber, Antechamber, and their connecting passages with the dimensions you claim were intentional.
Could it be that you simply do not know what this planning sequence was because what you have created is nothing more than a random mishmash of square roots, imaginary lines, triangles and circles that has no sensible sequence?


> They had a grandiose concept of putting together
> an assembly of what they had learned and in their
> wisdom they decided that every aspect of the
> structure would be related to something, be it
> math, astronomy or the sciences.

Maths, astronomy and sciences that for the most part would not be discovered (or should I say re-discovered?) for more than four thousand years after the Pyramid was built…
Maths, astronomy and sciences encoded in a pyramid in such a fashion that only a handful of people including yourself are able to read and understand it…

Can you honestly not see, Clive, just how ludicrous all this is?


> There is no set
> format, but if you had applied your knowledge to
> the Kc and its passages and Antechamber without
> knowing the length of the Rc then you would have
> realized these square root values 30 years ago.
> You didn't...I didn't and neither did any other
> individual. The reason? We assumed all is in Rc
> measure and it isn't.

Sorry, Clive, but you really have got this wrong.
Petrie touched on this subject of square roots in his 1883 book, and J & M Edgar considered it at length back in the 1920s.
If you take the trouble to look, then I am confident you will probably find even earlier references.
BTW, I certainly knew about some of them nearly thirty years ago and had reached the conclusion that their presence was in all likelihood unintentional.


> You, as a mathematician, should also realize that
> ratios overrule actual numerical values

I am not by any stretch of the imagination a mathematician.


> the Kc
> is set out using ratios of squares, circles and
> triangles.

No, Clive.
You have set out the King's Chamber, etc. “using ratios of squares, circles and triangles.”
This does not mean that this is how the architect did it.


> But, if you actually place the AE's
> intelligence level lower than that then I am
> sorry, you are never going to see much more out of
> Giza.

This has nothing to do with the level of intelligence of anybody, and it is disingenuous of you to say that it is.


> > > 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.
>
> Stop there MJ...
> Now read my words.
> I never "ever" told you that the Kc was
> constructed to demonstrate simple math ratios.
> It's there to demonstrate one heck of a lot more.

Then why on earth are you putting out diagrams festooned with square roots?


> But here we are once again. I show you the grade
> two material and you claim me convoluting…it never
> fails.

Perhaps it would help if you were to explain properly your ‘grade one’ material before moving onto the second grade, sorry, I mean ‘grade two’ material.


> > 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.
>
> You are missing it completely MJ:
>
> This was a golden opportunity for them to
> demonstrate what they knew…they “didn’t” miss it!

For goodness sake, Clive, KNEW WHAT???????


> Why do you think glyphs are absent from the
> interior?

I take it you are here talking about glyphs proper and not the “Giza Glyphs” which nobody but yourself recognises.
In which case I have absolutely no idea why the interior of this Pyramid was not adorned with glyphs, wall paintings, texts, etc.


> Why do you think they made it easy for invaders to
> break into the chambers?

How do you know it was easy?
What makes you think it was easy?


> They knew we would destroy while looking for the
> obvious...treasures!

Destroy what?


> They fooled us...nothing there but intelligence,
> and an abundance of it.

Actually, I can’t help feeling that the only person they fooled over this “abundance of intelligence” malarkey is you.


> > 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.
>
> MJ…you are playing a broken record again.
> I have enough to keep you busy for the rest of
> your life...believe me.

Judging from the content of your web site and posts to this forum you have enough whatever to keep me busy for about the remainder of this week.


> > > 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.
>
> Wow !!!
> Who informed you that one?
> If you apply the above concept to Egyptology then
> the institute will close instantly...throw out
> those books why don’t you?

Please, please don’t tell me that you know for certain without any textual evidence what-so-ever how Khufu’s architect completed this Pyramid’s design…


> > 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.
>
> It is also evident or very obvious that you are
> not an architect, designer or builder…never
> have…never will be.

Your layering a collection of lines and circles over the plan of an existing structure without explaining the sequence involved suggests to me that nor are you an architect, designer or builder.


> > 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.
>
> Then what does your argument indicate, that they
> were intelligent but elected to use crude
> implements?

They used the tools and techniques available to them.
What else do you imagine they could have done?


> The math I have introduced you to is not
> sophisticated and, as you have stated, is simple
> to derive from squares.

You haven’t introduced me to any maths I didn’t already know, Clive


> And the astronomy I
> present is no more than the days and degrees for
> planets to orbit the Sun, and that is as easy to
> calculate as square root values…simple counting of
> days compared to star locations. Please…don’t deny
> the AE that one.

I must confess I didn’t know that the AEs knew that the planets, including theirs, orbited the Sun.
Nor was I aware that the AEs measured angles and gradients in degrees.
And this despite wading through umpteen tomes on 4th Dyn. Egyptians!
Perhaps you can cite the relevant references for me.


> > 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.
>
> You do not construct Giza-style pyramids using
> basic math and building skills.

Well, you may not think it the right way to do it, but clearly the 4th Dyn. Egyptians thought otherwise.


> Modern engineering
> will verify that fact in a flash.

Actually, modern engineering does no such thing.
This idea that the AEs couldn’t have built the Great Pyramid in the way Egyptologists and others say it was is arrant nonsense.
The Giza Plateau is knee-deep in evidence that supports the Egyptologists’s view, whereas evidence to the contrary is conspicuous by its total absence.


> > 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”?
>
> Read the life-story of Champollion. I chuckle
> sometimes over the similarity of circumstance.

And I’m almost choking over the absurdity.


> > 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.
>
> There was this king named Sneferu who…."had a
> dream" !

And to think that you complain when I say you are doing little more than constantly prevaricating…

MJ