As I've now taken a few minutes to run back through some very old posts on the subject, I'd like to Present Mr. Thomas with his own words, whereby he derives more meaning from the maths than from cultural studies of Egyptians:

Quote

IMO, if we ignore the arithmetic and geometry that went into the planning of this Pyramid, then we will never have the full picture of its purpose or purposes.

For example, my analysis of the dimensions of the Queen's Chamber and its shafts show that not only were they derived directly from the dimensions of the King's Chamber (and therefore designed after the King's Chamber), but also that unlike the KC shafts the QC shafts were not designed to reach the outside of the Pyramid - they end where the architect wanted them to from the beginning; well short of the Pyramid's exterior.

So, you see, the arithmetic and geometry used in the designing of the King's and Queen's Chambers and their shafts alone tells us that Anthony's theory is, at least in part, probably wrong. (emphasis added)

[www.hallofmaat.com]

This was just four months ago. Now he claims the opposite has always been his position?

Here's another one, where he dismisses all our knowledge of Egyptian spiritual culture, in favor of his maths:

Quote

My own work on the design and dimensions of Khufu's pyramid shows that Anthony's view is wrong, in which case Anthony's "Abyss" hypothesis is (fatally?) flawed, and no amount of talk about AE cosmology, cosmography, religion and so on is going to change this.

Aside from the flaw in Anthony's Queen's Chamber hypothesis, I have good reason to doubt that the King's Chamber was Khufu's final resting place. (emphasis added)

[www.hallofmaat.com]

Here's a fairly clear assertion on the subject:

Quote

My hypothesis on how the Pyramid was designed shows that the King’s Chamber might not have been Khufu’s final resting place, and there is an as-yet-to-be-discovered fourth chamber. (emphasis added)

[www.hallofmaat.com]

Notice his conclusion is based on an "hypothesis on how the pyramid was designed" (his mathematical hypothesis), not on examination of the plug stones, texts or any other cultural or physical considerations. He mentions these other things as an afterthought later on at the bottom of the post, but he's quite clear here on his design hypothesis being the source of his claims.

You'll see in this quote, from over four years ago, where he compares his work to Gantenbrink's excellent analysis, yet finds flaws because Gantenbrink didn't start with the same false assumption that MJT did, and as a result didn't go far enough with baseless speculations:

Quote

I have just read again the full text of Gantenbrink’s article from which you took the above extract. His “Simple explanation for the layout of Khufu's pyramid” is indeed ‘simple’, but, I am pleased to say, my explanation is simpler. Also, it should be noted that Gantenbrink’s proposed design method only explains a mere handful of the pyramid’s features. I have applied his design method to several others of the pyramid’s features and it simply does not work. My proposed design method, on the other hand, works for literally every single feature – inside and out. All of which, of course, means that your assertion that, “The work has been done” is actually wrong.

Interestingly, Gantenbrink’s hypothesis and my hypothesis have a number of points in common; for example, holding that the numbers 2, 7, 11, and 22 were part of the design method; and this is quite a boost to my morale. What particularly pleases me is how Gantenbrink focuses on the ceilings of chambers as reference points. I had established that the ceilings were reference points more than twenty years ago – and I’m not an Egyptologist, architect or builder! And do you recall my mentioning how my hypothesis proposes that the pyramid’s design started with two whole number rectangles (a point I established around thirty years ago)? I see that Gantenbrink, too, argues for the pyramid’s design starting with a whole number rectangle! Isn’t life wonderful!

[www.hallofmaat.com]

It is a subtle difference, but a significant difference, nonetheless. Gantenbrink knew when to stop, since he had reached the evidenciary impasse, so to speak. MJT continues with his speculative assumptions, as if they were facts, and thus he takes his theorizing far beyond its acceptable limits.


I think we can all judge for ourselves. He has continuously stated that his maths can TELL us about the designers intent, beyond the simple, mundane mathematics he now claims. He has clearly stated that the maths "predict" the location of features within the pyramid... (so long as he knows where those features already are, that is).

I'm quite finished with this. I don't think I need to type much more to make this point any more clear.

And now we'll see what the response is. Anyone up for a little wager?

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.