Jon_B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course it’s “Alternative!”. You only have to
> read the “Conclusion” to see how “alternative” his
> views are.
>
> Quote:
> “The non-mathematician may take this as an excuse
> to dismiss my geometrical findings, not realizing
> that the various relationships are irrefutable
> facts which cannot be rejected as hypothetical
> or speculative. On the contrary, it is the
> funerary theory that is speculative for the large
> megalithic pyramids, although we may concede that
> these awesome monuments were possibly used as
> royal tombs during the historical Fourth Dynasty.”
>
> Particularly that “it is the funerary theory that
> is speculative for the large megalithic pyramids”.
>
> Many years ago I corresponded with John Legon on
> two occasions and I respect some of his work but
> phrases such as:
>
> Quote:
> “the present findings will not be understood or
> appreciated by many readers, who lack the
> mathematical reasoning power needed to recognise
> the truth of the geometrical arguments which have
> been put forward” strike me as unnecessarily
> pompous and defensive and designed to reject any
> criticism in advance.
>
> This thread should go straight into the
> Alternative section where those who claim the “the
> mathematical reasoning power needed to recognise
> the truth of the geometrical arguments which have
> been put forward” can discuss them.
I find John Legon's work interesting as well. The "tomb theory" for the great pyramids certainly appears to be "speculative" in light of the fact that there is no direct physical evidence to support the "theory". All evidence that they are tombs is circumstantial.
____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.