I would agree that my work is remedial, but remarkable in that my research could have been done around 130 years ago, which would have put the pi theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

There is now such a division between those who support the pi theory and those who reject the pi theory that the prospect of a reconciliation is low unless there is an archaeological discovery to the satisfaction of all.

I agree that you are working in an exciting new field in that a purely geometric theory for the positions of G1, G2, and G3, has the potential to quash the Orion Correlation Theory in the popular mind-set, should such a theory gain wide acceptance. It was enough for me to address a small problem:

I was asked by brother to consider the geometric design of the Grand Gallery, and I came across a geometric solution after a few hours study in the spring of 2003. I expected that it would take a year or so to write up, but it took 3 years to write a draft monograph, and a few months more to publish privately in October 2006. Looking back, I should have done a website to get a wide audience.

The problem with your theory, even if it is correct, is getting it across to a wide audience. There are rival theories out there, and a geometric theory is unlikely to appeal to a wide audience, or even Egyptologists, as I have discovered.

I didn't investigate the slots in the walls as they were filled in. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that they had a temporary functional role in construction; ie without any symbolic meaning.

I have posted detailed reasons for the lengths of both the Ascending Passage and the Grand Gallery on this forum, not only this year but also previously.

I should have posted my monograph on the Grand Gallery on a website to help with debate.

Mark





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2014 07:34AM by Mark Heaton.