Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Byrd Wrote:
>
> The purpose of this board is to discuss, and
> weigh, evidence: all Byrd has done is to ask you
> for evidence. Please don't accuse her of
> "taunting".

Well ,it is mildly taunting because she knows that the data is not available. Why then ask for it?

> > And besides, like you are trying supress my
> > discovery,
>
> No one is trying to suppress anything of yours.
> They're trying to evaluate it.

The point is that after being evaluated (was your"evaluation" a good example?), the study would be dropped into a wastebasket, instead of added to one of the scales always loaded with evidence for either side of the argument.

> On the subject of Schwaller de Lubicz, you might
> be interested in the views expressed at the
> conclusion of this article.

I thought this was not a political board. What I just read is political, it is a personal attack on Lubicz as a man. I am not interested in that, just like the US space program was not interested in von Braun's political views. This should be a matter of course.

Quoting the article you recommend: "R. A. de Lubicz went to Egypt, where he spent years studying the temple at Luxor. ''Le Temple de l'Homme,'' published in 1958, was his exposition of the inner meaning of Pharaonic architecture, which boring mainstream Egyptologists with their profane readings had failed to penetrate."

Translated into simple English, Lubicz had documented geometry as applied science in Egyptian art and architecture. Geometry is apolitical. Therefore Lubicz's geometrical analyses deserve to be judged on their own merit.

More quoting from the article - "This is all quite interesting, but the reader has to work hard to extract the interest. The book is clogged with abstruse lectures on secret harmonies, mystical chemistry and whatnot. The style is rigorous, but the content is ultimately meaningless."

Here, Hermione, you can see a classic example of how the baby went out with the bathwater. Geometry is never meaningless.

Quote continues: Eventually, Mr. VandenBroeck left the temple of mysteries at Grasse. It is to his credit that an important motive for his doing so was that he found de Lubicz's political ideas objectionable. It would have been even more to his credit if he had gone further and had recognized that most of de Lubicz's theories were junk. "

How easy it is to say 'junk'. But the guy was able to see the difference between science and politics. His conduct was to his credit, not otherwise. The author also says "most", OK, but what about the 'rest' after 'most'?

"His ''archeology'' at Luxor failed to take account of the ascertainable circumstances of the temple's building. His ''history'' was a farrago of nonsense about racial destiny and the secret histories of Templars, tarot cards and so on. His ''geography'' had space for a manmade Nile and a Sphinx up to its neck in seawater. His ''science'' was an ill-tempered polemic against Darwin and Einstein. It is odd, then, to find Saul Bellow's foreword giving endorsement to de Lubicz as ''a source of revolutionary insights.'' "

Nice article - a classic character assassination - and Schwaller's factual geometrical observations are suppressed with a great sigh of relief. They belong to the same side of the scale with my evidence.