Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Heaton Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This forum is within my moderate compass, and
> it
> > is for those with alternative theories who
> may or
> > may not regard themselves as Egyptologists.
> >
> > You have just shown me that I do not have a
> chance
> > of understanding what is posted on some
> other
> > forums.
> >
> > I'd like to stay on this forum because I
> enjoy it,
> > but I suppose that even if I convinced
> everyone on
> > this forum then it wouldn't make any
> difference to
> > the rest of the world.
> >
> > I think I'll now end my input to this thread,
> and
> > do a post on John Taylor as my next topic.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Edited 1 times. Last edit at 08/19/18 05:58PM
> by
> > Mark Heaton.
>
>
> Hi Mark ... I have spent 19 years working on
> various things and it all came to a head a short
> while ago on another forum where I realized that
> those that are opposed to any mathematical
> connection in the design of the pyramids or
> anything Egyptian WILL NEVER SEE IT. I liken it
> now to a Liberal not realizing that America is
> getting better and better and they refusing to
> want to see it. In my opinion it is the same sort
> of mentality.
>
> I too have given up my research because one thing
> I have learned over 19 years is that when an
> orthodox mind is made up it is impossible to get
> any new ides into his/hers head.
>
> Not sure why they have this pathological fear of
> numbers and the real joke is that they are so
> against any numerical solutions in Egypt but they
> themselves have never done any research on the
> subject so they argue from a position of total
> ignorance on this particular matter re: numbers.
>
> Anyway it is what it is and I no longer care if
> anyone reads or even believes my analysis in Egypt
> for I know I am right as was Clive Ross and that
> is all that is important to me nowadays ... oh
> that and my 11 day old grandson
>
> db
>
> Cherry Picking - If you can't debate your
> opponents on the substance of the issue, crush
> them on the minor details.
Not really Don I see Mark's research - as he says - to possibly being relevant to math history. While on the other hand - as noted in the Unexplained Mysteries thread your numbers while they work as numbers are not based on any information the AE would have had or could have obtained and some of the numbers were obtained in decidedly odd ways - nor did the AE showed any interest in them.
Mark's research seem plausible if not probable and both of yours is possible but IMHO yours is not plausible or probable.
Did you take your research to the Above Top Secret forum or Crystal Links they are much more open to creative out of the box thinking.