reply to post by Hanslune
Thanks again for your post. I think some of what you have written taking this thread off-topic – I will answer your points this time but please,
in future, do not expect me to do so unless, of course, they are on-topic. Thanks.
Hans: […] Under what pretext do you not accept all the other “hard mathematical and astronomical evidence” that can be found in thread
after thread in places like the hall of ma’at. Why is yours better than all those others?
SC: What I present is a design blueprint that explains how the dimensions of ALL 3 main pyramids were determined. The hypothesis I present further
explains the relative positioning of the main Gizamids AND the Queens AND the Sphinx. Indeed, my work also offers an explanation for the conspicuous
absence of Queens pyramids at Khafre’s tomb where one might have expected to find such given that this Pharaoh had 5 Queens, more than any other
Pharaoh at Giza. In addition to all of this, there is a context of Osiris/Orion in the AE culture thus supporting an ‘Orion-based mathematical
solution to the placement and dimensions of the pyramids at Giza. So, in answer to your question, present to me ANY other mathematical/astronomical
hypothesis that explains as much as that which I present and which also is supported by AE cultural beliefs?
Hans: […] you know the data is weak and cannot face professional & expert opinions so you “hide” here and ‘sell’ to the uninformed.
SC: If my hyopthesis presented in the opening post of this thread is flawed in some way, then please show me where I have gone wrong.
Hans: […]you...cannot face professional & expert opinion so you ‘hide’ here and ‘sell’ to the ‘uninformed'.
Okay, Hans – I have a number of points to take issue with relating to your statement above. First of all I am selling nothing – you talk as
though there are no ‘informed’ people here on ATS who are more than capable of debunking my work with solid Egyptological argument. I think also
there are a good number who will take exception with your inference. Indeed, one such individual, Byrd, a super-moderator here on ATS was also
recently appointed as a moderator on Ma’at, a serious Egyptological forum where I have also posted. Indeed you well know this since we have both
debated my work there. I also post on Hancock’s site and a number of others. In short, I will post and debate my work wherever I feel is
appropriate to do so, on orthodox and alternative sites alike. So where are you getting this notion that I am not facing orthodox opinion/critics?
Secondly, my opinion on a particular issue – as stated before – is ‘unorthodox’ and unacceptable to conventional Egyptological thought. Does
that make my opinion wrong? No, it does not. It simply means that what I present is not palatable to those who think we pretty much have all the
answers to the big questions in Egyptology. And that is precisely why people come to ATS – to hear and consider alternative opinion. The so-called
‘uninformed’ you mention are quite probably a lot more informed than you give them credit for and for many of them the answers given by
conventional wisdom simply leaves too much still to be explained. ATS does exactly what it says on the tin – it offers alternative views on our
ancient history (amongst many other things). My hypothesis is considered outwith the conventional scope hence why I present it here on ATS – it is
largely unwelcome on conventional sites.
Thirdly, presenting my work for Peer Review is a non-starter because – and I am so glad you stated it yourself – it will be RUBBISHED. You think
I don’t know this? You think I am so naive? But ask yourself why it will be rubbished by a Peer Review panel? Because simply it is too
unorthodox, too controversial. Who on a Peer Review panel is going to stick their professional expert neck on the line offering support to something
that will surely see them passed over for their next research grant?
The simple truth is, Hans, original thought is without peer and that is precisely why the Pope burned the astronomer.
SC: I am no fool here, Hans. I know how this particular ‘game’ works. This is a ‘battle’ and I am on the side of the heretics. I well
understand that this particular ‘orthodox’ nut cannot be cracked from within – the pressure has to come from outside.
Hans: Oh really? Care to point to a scientific point in Egyptology that was changed by outside pressure? You don’t published because your work will
SC: You have answered your own question! It’s a closed club! Prior to the internet to attempt such would have been an impossible task. The
internet, however, is the peer review panel for those who wish to consider such arguments out in the open and not in smoke-filled rooms behind closed
doors. Let us see how the orthodoxy deals with that in the next 5 to 10 years. There is more than one way to skin a cat. But if you are talking
about publishing as a means towards recognition then you sorely mistake me for someone who actually gives a damn about such accolades. Accolades,
reputations, baubles and letters only gives the holders of such the right to disagree with others who hold the same. And where precisely does that
leave the rest of us? Precisely none the wiser.