> 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...
Poor Morton... you sound like the last desperate gasp of the establishment.
You haven't even read the book yet you have already taken to the trenches and are fighting a new theory tooth and nail. You regard the RVT as an unproven theory - fair enough - yet seek to demolish it using another unproven theory (namely, that the Giza pyramids were built as tombs) as a battering ram.
This won't do. This kind of angry, reactionary, knee jerk barnstorming may pass muster on the Hall of Ma'at - indeed, it is institutionalised there by the clucking and fussing interfering Moderators - but it's not good enough here.
Enough with all this pick-pick-picking away at little points you wouldn't even accept if proven anyway. If you can't open your mind just a little, you are completely wasting your time here. You might as well be sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la"...
""It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair