To all,

Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greg,
>
> This debate is about 50 posts long. I gave you
> the link to the post that best explains my
> objection to the concept of maths dictating the
> design, and the intentions of the priests playing
> second fiddle to the engineers.
>
> Do you find that concept to be the least bit
> tenable?

I am not advocating any such concept.
I do not claim that maths dictated the design of the Pyramid’s interior.
I do not claim that the intentions of the priests played second fiddle to the engineers.


> In addition, I have also shown where MJT has
> clearly said that he begins with an assumption:
> maths drove the design.

And I in return have pointed out repeatedly that Anthony is mistaken in this and I do not assume maths drove the design.


> I have quoted him
> repeatedly on this claim he has made, even though
> now he is twisting his stance to try and squirm
> out from under the weight of the evidence he
> provided against himself.

What Anthony chooses to see as me twisting my stance, etc., is actually nothing more than my repeated attempts at explaining to Anthony that he has misunderstood my assumption.


> I should also remind everyone here that his
> "maths" lead him to say that the pyramid has more
> than three chambers,

Not true.
My hypothesis does not include the idea that there is another chamber inside the Pyramid.
It is actually an independent speculation of mine based on the purely practical problems associated with the conventional theory on how the Pyramid was sealed after Khufu’s alleged interment in the King’s Chamber.


> that Khufu was not interred
> in his burial chamber, but rather in a secret
> chamber that his mathematical calculations have
> proven to exist;

Not true.
The problems with the conventional theory on how the Pyramid was sealed after Khufu’s alleged interment in the King’s Chamber alone suggest to me that Khufu might not have been interred in this Chamber.
I have no proof what-so-ever, maths-based or otherwise, that a “secret chamber” exists.


> that the plugstones in the
> ascending passage were placed there during the
> construction of the pyramid;

The reality is nobody knows for real whether or not these stones were stored in the Grand Gallery or built in situ – the jury is still out on this issue.
I speculate that they were built in situ.


> the entire GG/QC/KC
> area of the pyramid was built as a big fat hoax to
> trick would-be tomb robbers into thinking they had
> already missed the big treasure;

My hypothesis only explains the sequence of the planning of the Pyramid’s interior.
That the GG/QC/KC sections were designed to fool tomb-robbers is not my idea at all.
It is, however, one I find plausible – but it has nothing to do with maths.


> and NONE of it
> jibes with what we know from the real culture that
> built the pyramids.

This is too sweeping a generalisation to be able to comment on it.
Suffice to say, my hypothesis fits in comfortably with most of the facts and conventional theories on the Pyramid; what few I disagree with are purely speculations on my part.


> He says Egyptologists are WRONG because his
> mathematical calculations are RIGHT.

Not true.
If I thought that Egyptologists were wrong and I was right, then I would not be referring pointedly and consistently to my work as a hypothesis.


> In order to get to the root of his false claim, we
> have to get back to the very source of his bad
> reasoning: he starts with a flawed, false
> assumption that maths drove the design, and
> culture was a secondary concern.

Not true.
I have not made any false claims.
I do not start “with a flawed, false assumption that maths drove the design, and culture was a secondary concern”.


> Read through everything he's written.

I think this is an excellent idea; not just for Greg but everybody following this sub-thread.
The time is coming when I shall have to write an introduction to my hypothesis and the handful of speculations that I plan to tag on to the end of it.
If I were to mislead (albeit unwittingly) my readers from the off, then my work is not going to fair at all well.
I insist that Anthony has grossly misunderstood the situation and his criticisms are unfounded.
However, if anybody thinks that Anthony is right in his interpretations of what I have posted on my hypothesis and subsequent speculations, then please do let me know and I shall do my best to explain my position more clearly.
I have no objection what-so-ever to continuing this discussion openly on this Forum, but equally I’m happy for folks to contact me via the Private Message facility or e-mail me at rally.hcs@btinternet.com.
I have to get that introduction right, and any help will be warmly appreciated.
Thank you.
MJ