MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You continue, ‘It would help matters if you
> admitted in an explicit manner that my Giza Plan
> truly is in exact agreement with Petrie's plan,
> and that no other proposal comes as close.’

Anybody who studies my report knows as much.

> Sorry, I cannot and will not admit in any manner
> what-so-ever that your “Giza Plan truly is in
> exact agreement with Petrie's plan…”

In general then, you will not admit existence of facts, for which there is hard evidence.
Maybe the facts themselves don't mean much to you, so why don't you just say so?
Why deny facts? Treating the issue in this manner may indicate that these facts are not unimportant to you after all.
They are important to me. Let me restate them briefly:
Petrie had published the plan of Giza giving both averaged and non-averaged pyramid sides.
I found an exact method, which reproduces the basic version of Petrie's plan accurately. It also reproduces it exactly, with the exception of two sides of the third pyramid, which miss being exact replica of the plan by an inch. For details, check my report.

> Equally, I cannot and will not admit in any manner
> what-so-ever that “…no other proposal comes as
> close.’

Then perhaps, you don't have much knowledge of other proposals? Again, why not just say so?
After checking out all proposals for the Grand Plan of Giza I could find, none turn out nearly as close as my reconstruction. If you cannot accept this from me, check it out for yourself.
Because these things are true, I intend to refer to them in any relevant discussions. They are part of the discussion. This is the solid platform I was referring to. No more, no less. So, sorry, but I cannot accommodate your denial of reality.

> I say this because your hypothesis is based on
> questionable data.

Then you ought to question the data. Don't victimize evident facts.

> I say again, we don’t know:

To me it looks like you don't want to know.