Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Skip the sarcastic comments, Jiri, and I'll
> > happily discuss your theory with you.
> > I leave the ball in your court.
> >
> > MJ
>
> Alright, how did you like the reconstruction by
> Mick, and how does it compare?

I'll come to that later.
Meantime, here is my response to your previous post to me.

Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > 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.

Your theory – in particular the degree of accuracy you claim for it, and argue puts it ahead of all other such theories - can be tested very easily by checking its raw data.
You take the length of the sides of Khufu’s pyramid to be 9,068.8 inches, whereas the mean lengths of the sides at the base range from 9065.1” to 9073”.
The average length of the sides of Khafre’s pyramid roughly speaking varies from 8459” to 8478” – it depends on who’s measurements you read.
Just to confound thing’s further, there is evidence that Khafre’s pyramid was originally intended to be larger and stand farther north.
The base of Menkaure’s pyramid is, as you probably know, not square (a difference of about 96”) and, as with Khafre’s pyramid, measures of the individual sides vary from authority to authority.
The length of the royal cubit used in the planning and building of these structures might or might not have varied from building to building.
A difference of 0.04” (1mm) in the length of the royal cubit used to measure a distance of (topically) 1732.05rcs amounts to plus or minus 68”.
As anybody with a knowledge of the Giza necropolis can tell you, these actual and potential differences of up to tens of inches (possibly more) occur all over the site.
Like it or not, Jiri, your claim of near perfect accuracy is quite simply unfounded, and misleading.

Another way of testing your theory is to compare its ‘conclusions’ to what is currently known about the culture that allegedly created it.
This is something you need to do for yourself.
I am confident that eventually you will find the two to be incompatible.


> 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.

But your plan does not fit the actual site as accurately as you claim.
The best one can say for your theory on this front is that it’s fairly close and therefore about on par with the patterns churned out by others.

> > > 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.

For the reasons I give above, alone, your theory is not superior to others, nor does it succeed where others fail.


> Is this method too hard to grasp?

Not at all.
However, I do find it hard to accept that it has anything to do with the creators of the Giza necropolis.


> > As I have explained above, your theory is not superior to others.
> > You use CAD, cherry-picked inaccurate
> > measurements, etc., etc., and so on, and so forth,
>
> Give an example of cherry picked inaccurate measurement.

Choose any from those few I gave above – it’ll do for starters.


> > 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 !!!!!

I hate to disillusion you but that was in reference to your theory.
Presently I do not believe there to be such a plan at Giza.


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

Lines drawn from mostly imaginary points to mostly imaginary points do not constitute evidence.


> > And you wonder why I find your theory utterly
> > absurd…
>
> It is logical, not absurd. Absurd is your reaction.

I suppose It has a certain logic as far as modern mathematics is concerned.
Not at all sure it would be logical to a 4th Dyn. Egyptian.


> 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.

As I mentioned above, it is not known whether or not the royal cubit’s length varied from building to building.


> > 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.

I suggest you read my posts in the thread on Temple’s book about Anubis and the Sphinx.


> > “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.

As Lobo, Jammer, Warren, and others have pointed out to you, such measurements can exist or occur entirely unintentionally.

MJ