I am looking forward to your new theory. May be, just may be, it is the same as my theory. In which case we should both have to admit it is not our theory, but the only sensible theory that commends itself from the facts.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are as many theories as there are 'pyramidologists', so that those who are inclined to oppose such theories are able to label all as 'pyramidiots', because all, except perhaps one, must be wrong.

Clearly, if two people come up with the same theory independently, then two people could be right rather than just one.

Actually, it is possible that two alternative theories are not mutually inconsistent, for example, OCT and Piazzi Smyth's theory of the King's Chamber. But both can't be really significant, and what we're both looking for is the most significant theory of all.

Ideally, I find something in the internal architecture of the Great Pyramid, and you find exactly the same thing in the Giza ground plan. But we must do it independently, so I can't tell you what I've found.

My theory is related to the sun, and it is a picture I spotted nearly 8 years ago, just after I starting reasearching the Great Pyramid from Petrie's measurements - I hadn't even heard of Piazzi Smyth or any of the mystical theories, only OCT. I am not sure why no-one else has seen it. All I did was draw the internal architecture of G1 on a very large sheet of graph paper from Petrie's measurements - and one single observation, seemingly overlooked by all others, has kept me interested in G1.

There is a flaw in modern logic related to mathematical theories of the Great Pyramid. A mathematical theory does not need a mathematical proof. If we were debating how Tutankhamun died then we would look at the balance of evidence, and not demand a mathematical proof. As an example, here is my experience:

Some years ago I was driving back from a day trip when I realised that the width of the King's Chamber is 280 digits and that the original height of the Great Pyramid was 280 royal cubits.

I knew that Petrie had taken the view that both were based on the geometry of a circle, with the King's Chamber based on a very precise approximation of pi, and the shape of the pyramid based on the precise approximation of pi as 22/7.

In a matter of seconds, and without a caculator, I realised that the design of the King's
Chamber mirrored the shape of the Great Pyramid on a scale of one digit to one royal cubit, and that both fitted the pi theory based on pi = 22/7.

Therefore I submitted a 40 page paper to a leading journal of Egyptology. One referee pointed out that I hadn't proved my case. Of course I hadn't proved it - but the balance of evidence had shifted back towards Petrie's view.

The second referee found the theory convincing, and recommended a much shorter paper without all my detailed research - which would then have a greater impact.

The sub-editor had experienced difficulty in finding Egyptologists prepared to referee my paper. When both replies had arrived back, some months later, he said he could not recommend publishing to the editor as the comments of the referees were so very different.

I was pleased with the efforts of the sub-editor, who was diligent and courteous throughout, but admitted that he couldn't understand my paper.

In my opinion, the first referee, whose reply was long awaited, missed an opportunity to open up the debate based on a new perspective.

Mark