Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Everybody here knows that there is no textual
> > evidence for AE knowledge of pi.
>
> I didn't ask for that. Please don't put words in
> my mouth.

For goodness sake, Anthony, lighten up - and put the sentence back into its proper perspective.


> > This does not make for an open playing field.
> > It does, however, mean we have more room to
> > manoeuvre than you are prepared, somewhat
> > dogmatically, to allow.
>
>
> It's not dogma. It's responsible, rational,
> academic logic.

To you, yes, but not everybody sees it as you do (thank goodness)


> > But there is physical circumstantial evidence, and
> > nobody can make that disappear.
>
>
> No, there isn't. There's nothing at all that
> links the pyramids to circles. I asked you for
> evidence of anything linking the pyramid's height
> to the radius of a circle, but you've dodged the
> request, rather than looking for the answer. I'm
> throwing you a bone here. You've chucked it back
> at me.

Actually, your being patronising, but I can live with that.
As for your, “evidence of anything linking the pyramid's height to the radius of a circle, but you've dodged the request, rather than looking for the answer.” please read my posts addressed to Hermione on this issue.
You’ll find I’ve dealt with it fairly comprehensively.


> > Dismissing something on the grounds of coincidence
> > is not recommended.
>
>
> Whether you recommend it or not is irrelevant. It
> is rational and intellectually responsible.

No, Anthony, it is a copout, plain and simple.


> We
> don't add things into our data set because we WISH
> they were there. We add them in because there is
> evidence they belong there.
>
> No other reason will suffice.

You’re getting yourself bogged down with your near obsessive adherence to the ‘Scientific Method’ – not a good idea when your dealing with archaeology (so I’m told).


> > “Good looking”?
> > You’re getting awfully subjective.
> > Are you suggesting that the AE’s saw it in the
> > same way as you do?
>
>
> At least I'm not claiming they did things with
> their structures for which there is no rational
> explanation...

Ah, so you are suggesting that the AE’s saw it in the same way as you do.
How odd – for you, that is.


> > > Of those , one is seqed 5½. So, if they
> > > chose this just randomly ten percent of the time,
> > > we would end up with about ten or twelve pyramids
> > > with this seqed.
> >
> > > How many pyramids have this seqed?
> >
> > 11, possibly more, according to Rossi.
>
> How delightfully consistent with probability.

And how inconsistent of you to find it so.

MJ