MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I do not consider your technique to be at all
> brilliant.
> You have effectively done nothing more than use a
> CAD programme and a series of cherry-picked
> inaccurate measurements (e.g. see above re the
> base of Khufu’s pyramid) to produce geometric
> patterns that are somehow meaningful to you (and
> perhaps a few other like-minded individuals).
>
Well, let us see you change your tune a Paragraph or so below.

> >
> > Do you deny that the Golden Section works for
>
> > the reconstruction most admirably? Stick to
> what
> > is on the plate in front of you.
>
> The manifestation of Phi in your flawed diagrams
> does not constitute evidence for the AEs knowing
> Phi.

The diagrams are in no way flawed. You assume so, but cannot test it in any way, for lack of CAD or just mathematical expertise. In other words, you are far below the level of the Egyptian designers in this domain.

An ingenious extensive systematic design like the Giza plan, whose material implementation fits like a Swiss clock, is always a strong indication of intent, if not proof. In my opinion, however, it is proof, especially in conjunction with related phenomena occurring as well. This is exactly the case with Giza.
> >
> > Okey, MJ. Let me have One more try at
> explaining
> > why my reconstruction is superior to others.
> > The secret method is comparison!
> > Compare all reconstructions against the
> original!
> > If and when you do, you will see that my
> recon
> > succeeds, where other fail. Is this method
> too
> > hard to grasp?
>
> You use CAD, cherry-picked inaccurate
> measurements, etc., etc., and so on, and so forth,

Give an example of cherry picked inaccurate measurement.

> to create a geometric pattern that incorporates
> the ground plans and locations of the Giza Three,

Now we are making progress. You have finally
admitted that
THERE IS A GEOMETRIC PATTERN INCORPORATING
THE GROUND PLANS AND LOCATIONS OF GIZA THREE !!!!!

> and provide not a single shred of evidence of
> intent.

Lots of evidence.

> And you wonder why I find your theory utterly
> absurd…

It is logical, not absurd. Absurd is your reaction.

> You have selected a royal cubit length
> that > > gives
> > > you your desired result.
> >
> > I have selected the cubit that works! Not in
> > one result, but a bunch of results. That is
> > typically human. "If it works - Use it!"
>
> > > Petrie’s royal cubit of 20.632” or 534
> mms, gives
> > > a result of 1730.96 royal cubits.

523.7218

> > > We also need to consider the possibility
> > that
> > > Petrie’s measurement is not accurate.
> > >
> > Petrie's royal cubit does not work
> > for the reconstruction of Petrie's layout.
>
> Petrie’s royal cubit (suggested to him by the
> dimensions of the King’s Chamber inside Khufu’s
> pyramid) is hard evidence, but it doesn’t fit your
> theory, so you dismiss it in exchange for an
> otherwise unevidenced royal cubit length that does
> fit your theory.

Petrie's cubit derived from the KC works
therein, but it does not work for Giza. If
Petrie were still alive, he might have
take that into account in contrast to you.

> Go on like this, Jiri, and you’ll give
> ‘Alternative Egyptology’ a bad name.

Well, it is not alternative Egyptology
by any means. It is pure science.
Alternative Egyptology is what you do,
because you limit your data input,
discriminating against the inconvenient.

> >
> > It is sound, because it works. No other
> values
> > for the cubit work for the reconstruction.
> > 1732 cubits even does not work.
> > The constructed value of the sq. root of 3
> > does not work. All those round and precise
> > values in the reconstruction suddenly go
> poof.
>
> “The measurement exists, therefore it must be
> there intentionally” .
> Sorry, Jiri, but I really cannot go along with
> that.

What measurement? I know of no such singular
measurement. I know only of a entire set of
measurements, whose non-random character has
intent written all over. These measurements
should and would not exist, if they were not
intentional.
Can you see, how your arguments employ pure
propagandistic methods? Little distortion here
or there, liberally sprinkled with denial of
the obvious - how does it feel, MJ?

You can take a horse to water, but you can't
make it drink as the proverb goes.