MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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?
>
> And to Jammer,
> > Okay, so it is a transgression to form
> > a simple category of study consisting of
> > the Great Giza Trio. Sorry, I dared to
> > reconstruct this category's layout basing
> > on geometric theory of the Section, and
> > did it with unprecedented accuracy.
> > I won't do it again. How could I?
> >
> > Thanks for the enlightenment, and the
> > correctional sermon.
>
> Jiri, if these comments of yours are in anyway
> representative of how you propose to respond to
> any futher criticisms of your theory, then I am
> pulling out of this discussion here and now.
>
Well, if that is how you feel, MJ, if you are looking for an exit, by all means go ahead and exit. Your contributions did not so far amount to much, anyhow since you don't give any credit, where it is due, and keep on lumping this successful reconstruction with previous failures by other researchers.
Do you want to see a classical example of a failed reconstruction? Go to:
[users.macunlimited.net]
Yet, this is what a skeptic(!) says about it:

QUOTE
Though it might be premature to be offering positive conclusions of Mick's Geometrical Construction at this point there are a few notes that should be mentioned.

1. To our knowledge this is the first time that anyone has created a construction theory for Giza from a clean drawing board. This is a very different process from simply taking the existing structures and finding alignments. This feature should not be overlooked - nor dismissed too quickly.

snip

5. In his book The Great Pyramid Decoded, Peter Lemesurier presents an interesting hypothesis in respect of Rutherford's survey figures of the Great Pyramid. He suggests that any geometrical construction should be verifiable by the use of trigonometry - and these figures can then be compared with the survey figures. If the geometry is properly done with a CAD programme then the trigonometry figures can be regarded as accurate - and if the trig. figures are the same as the survey figures then the survey figures must be 'correct'.

On that reasoning the astonishing similarity between Mick's figures and Petrie's should not be dismissed without some serious consideration.

UNQUOTE

Astonishing similarity between Mick's figures and Petrie's?
How about identity between my figures and Petrie's?