Hello Jiri,

I wrote, ‘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…”

You reply, ‘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.’

I can’t help but notice how you quote me out of context.
Consequently, I repeat the whole text:
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…”
Equally, I cannot and will not admit in any manner what-so-ever that “…no other proposal comes as close.”
I say this because your hypothesis is based on questionable data.
I say again, we don’t know:
What the intended dimensions of the Giza pyramids were.
What the finished dimensions of the Giza pyramids were.
How accurate Petri’s survey of the pyramids and their locations on the plateau is.

To this I should now like to add that you need to explain the differences in the actual lengths of the sides and the angles of the corners of Khufu’s pyramid.
Likewise with Khafre’s pyramid and Menkaure’s pyramid.

Unless and until you address these issues (and those raised by Lobo, Jammer and others here), your hypothesis will remain completely untenable.


You write, ‘[the facts] are important to me’

Then may I suggest that you prove it by addressing the issues mentioned above and elsewhere in this thread?


You write, ‘Then perhaps, you don't have much knowledge of other proposals? Again, why not just say so?

I have been following the posted works of Don, Scott and C. Wayne for quite some time.


You write, ‘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.’

I have read through your hypothesis (on your web site) and found it wanting for reasons I have already given you, but which so far you have ignored.


You write, ‘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.’

I say yet again that your hypothesis is based on questionable data.


You write, ‘So, sorry, but I cannot accommodate your denial of reality.’

The reality here is that the data you are using is questionable (the actual measurements of the base of Khufu’s pyramid is a classic example of this)


You write, ‘Then you ought to question the data. Don't victimize evident facts.’

I find this a rather odd comment for you to make.
The facts and the data are one and the same thing – broadly, the multitudinous measurements taken by Petrie and others at Giza.
What you are claiming to be facts more often than not are only speculations on your part as to why certain measurements are what they are.


You quote me as saying, ‘I say again, we don’t know:’, and then respond with, ‘To me it looks like you don't want to know.’

Quoting people out of context is not the way forward.

MJ