> It might be a logical fallacy to actually consider all pyramids
> to try to understand the purpose of the Great Pyramid. It
> could be argued that to consider all other pyramids would lead
> to erroneous conclusions.
How anybody can look at drawings and photographs of the pyramids in publications such as Mark Lehner's 'The Complete Pyramids' and Alberto Sillotti's 'The Pyramids' and say that these magnificent structures are not all closely related to each other is utterly beyond me.
It's like lining up all the different cars made by different companies over the last 50 years and saying that the current Rolls Royce Phantom is in no way connected with them.
> Even the relationship between the
> Great Pyramid and those pyramids around it is up to scholarly
Please would you give some examples of this.
> During construction the stones were not moved "mathematically."
I see that Jacob has covered this.
p.s. I've just downloaded the 14 videos of your Water Pump for viewing later (the joys of a 7.5MBs internet connection).
So few answers - and not one of them mine.