Hello,

Don:

"A tall order BA and I should think if any Egyptologist was given the same challenge on their theories they would fail as well. However we are not discussing their work we are discussing Clive's and my occassional small minute add-on."

Maybe a challenge, but, if followed through would define the proof of any theory---patience is required.............Seeing things through are how they are understood and reproducable or not......


Back for a few -----------Well, I have read the threads concerning Clive and Don- I will just say how I personally view this. I see Don as fighting to get approval for his geometry through riding off the back of Clive's work which is some what related.
I see Clive claiming his theories are truth when no evidence is given, only for Don claiming he is right because he thinks so because of his geometrical thoughts - and it makes it seem like Don must be correct and back and forth.
I do not care about a few equations thrown out that are basic type math.....even I was able to see what was done with working backwards to find values......the trick is to work forward with no preconceived notions of the outcome----

I see maybe the primary problem when dealing with such unorthodox methodologies with numbers is the lack of knowledge of numbers / knowledge as in to know that numbers intertwine and when rounded can increase in similarities and relations to other numbers will increase. To understand constants are constants and to use Pi or Phi is nothing special as both are in a sense natural occurring rhythms and values as in the perimeter of a circle that is a perfect circle in relationship to its radius, it does not matter what the radius (or diameter) is as the constant will always be the same - Now, as to the ratios that were used during different eras of history, they were used as the people's knew there were constants, but, used their existing methodologies at the time to define them as close as able......Thus you will see variance in the value of Pi /Phi and how it is labled.............but, their is an agreed standard that has been developed, but, only in modern times sort to say. Numbers are magical, but, they are a science in a way as there is methodology in reproduction and equations. I would say if you were to ask for resources to help study layouts of architecture and plan studies cold, with out explaining what the outcome should be and others came up with the same numbers as you did, and an explanation of why they went in that direction and were open minded to symbolism, then the next step would be to suggest planetary alignments and once again a cold panel to study various astronomical correlations that are accepted standards and units of measure ( as needed to the precision of shooting capsules out in space to align with another entity for docking and sorts or real high tech precision). I feel physicists or seasoned astronomers who use rigorous restraint in rounding off loosely using one equation, then another, and yet another to get related products or sums that can symbolize for example and orbit....and so forth should be the ones to work with.

Words used as possible, suggest, suspect, yak yak yak.......as opposed to claiming truths are more accepted and receive more eager participants to discover than an ego hollering.

It is one thing to have the creative mania it takes to crank out numbers, but, only maturity and patience and the ability to move your ego out of the way and work with others will be the key to further any studies. The most important thing should be to find truths of any theory - it is not really who did what and who did what first. I see Egypt and many other studies as ego games of who can figure out what first and what is the more sensational as opposed to actually working together in complimentary disciplines. Real scientists and those who immerse their body, mind and soul into studies are not usually pumping their personal agendas for attention and acceptance - if anything, these professionals are hermits and ask for help and critique. This is quite the opposite of what I have found from many of the posters on Ma'at. I see people like to yak about construction theories of the GP - and also like to yak about numbers- I posted for submission a paper for peer review on a very well produced and thought out theory and formulas for ramp ....I received only 2 people who were interested in reading the papers and viewing the power point presentation for comment. I see a fear of most people on here to not want to look at papers submitted by authenticated physicists, scientists and engineers. They are not comfortable or lack the education required to really understand what they are viewing. I understand that, and that is OK, I thought I would submit for interest and to contribute to the forum. However, from my viewpoint, when I see post upon post of bashing of egos and the lack of professionalism or scientific methodology, I have to question what is of real importance to the people who are posting? Education and learning and contributing to a greater body of knowledge, or personal awards for whacked out theories and amateur procedures and lack of understanding of the true nature of numbers and what they are apt to do.

When I read the "It is now time to discuss Clive's work...." it was not with requesting collaboration or cold panels or this or that, it was more posting of I am right, he is right and he proves I am right and this is for real and you are dumb wits that are stuck in orthodox because you won't believe me or Clive - and then I have read the same from Clive and all of this is not discussing and exchanging ideas, it is ranting and ego bashing and , well, it is going to get no where except for a lot of bad feelings. I initially wrote my post and gave grounds of why I was a skeptic, it was not addressed with an intelligent rely, only defensive. As long as people are defensive about their work and not open minded to real discussions there is not going to be much to learn that is of value. Of course, this is my opinion only...........I just think it is a shame to not be able to suggest, ask, and welcome...group effort as opposed to solo flying. As far as Clive and Don, I think they must be very nice people and intelligent in their own way- just I think this is a theory that is pretty out there with no basis given as why it was important ( I can think of things, but, that is only my thoughts and not necessarially real valid) for the Egyptians to encode this and that in their architecture---like where are you all goign with this? Was Ra born on Mars? Does this have to do with tying in the Face on Mars with the Sphinx later on - or ? Ancients could view the planets and stars and did know their astronomy pretty damn well considering there were no hight tech scopes of the time that we know of right off hand or have found.....But, that is to show the brillance of huiman kind, after generations and generations of stuyding the skies and stars, paths could be followed and this was handed down and handed down and sciences were growing......

By embellishing such as "He knows every crack of Giza or the GP """or how ever it was said, is so exaggerated that it only adds desperateness to the theories and entities that are trying to promote them.

A person can be a technician of sorts and have the knowledge or know how to find ratios, look for similarities and relationships, but
if the person lacks maturity to submit their theory as unproven and ask for commentary/criticsm as in critique --- ask for joint efforts in contributing efforts to further a possible study to learn realization of whether the theory is worthy or not.........well then--- what is it all for in all reality?

Many people do not read mathematics and geometry the way a few do that have that sort of mania and it will be very hard to prove anything like this unless you get a body of individuals who will study the various facets needed to develope this idea and prove it....go to some math and geometry sites where people talk numbers and play with geometry, you will get more there than you will here if you just want to talk about your theory and say you are correct.

I am still a skeptic, and I still don't like sounding like a bitch. I am just contributing some things to consider - that is all I have to say after reading all of these threads.

Good luck, play fair !!

All I hope for right now is that I spelled things correctly and my grammar is at least half OK.

C

Dr. Colette M. Dowell, N.D.
Circular Times
[www.circulartimes.org]