> SC: However, 280 trillion to 1 suggests very strongly
> that it was done as described i.e. that there is a geometric
> association between the Gizamids and the Belt stars.
> Morten: Please, do share your calculations.
> SC: Why? What difference will it make to you? Tell me - what
> odds would satisfy you? The answer, I rather suspect, is that
> no amount of odds in my favour would remotely convince you of
> my argument since you have already made up your mind that the
> Gizamids are not geometrically linked to Orion's Belt and no
> amount of evidence/proof will convince you otherwise. Why
> waste my time?
Think of it as an opportunity to expose another of your arguments as void.
You throw glossed-over arguments around as confetti - arguments that, when scrutinized, fall apart.
Lets see what we have got so far...
That the AE said the pyramids were emptied supports your RVT.
False. You quoted half a stanza and conveniently left out what they said was taken out - the buried King.
Square the G3 diagonal.
False. You "boxed off" the diagonal. And left the AE with two stars shaped as squares and one shaped as a rectangle. It makes no sense at all.
It can be done, therefore it was done.
False. By your own admission (and common sense).
280 trillion to 1 suggests very strongly that it was done as described.
This is just another way to say that "it can be done, therefore it was done". Should we brand it as false straight away or do you want to show us some faulty calculations before we do so?
Now, if this ongoing exercise should show us that your arguments keep falling apart, that would leave you with nothing more than an opinion (which you are entitled to ofcourse).
Your book should arrive shortly, we shall see...
Post Edited (10-Feb-12 09:33)