SC... that G3 is indeed a slight rectangle – has something to do with how it might impact upon your own research which (I believe) has always insisted on G3 being square. Ah well – such is life.
DB: You obviously know nothing of my research.
SC: Check the credits in our book, Don. I think the fact that you are credited there belies your statement above.
DB: A rectangular base for G3, would only allow me more options not harm it in anyway.
SC: Why do I feel suddenly queasy when you say that?
DB: Scott you diagram does not work. Plain and simple.
SC: Don – you have entered into this thread claiming all sorts of things that have later been shown to be false. You started by saying G3 was not rectangular. False. You went on to say there was no connection between the theoretical line (L1) and the dimensions of G3 base. False. You claimed it was impossible to create a rectangle from the G3 diagonal. Again, false.
Why should anyone accept a single word you say, Don? You have been shown by me to be wrong time and time again in your claims in this thread. Do you have the decency to remove you claims? No, you do not. You simply move on (quietly) to the next bone of contention which simply comes down to one of accuracy.
I will tell you right now, Don – I have absolutely no intention in getting involved in such minutiae. We are dealing with a concept design here, a design I might add that allowed you also to generate three bases from the Belt stars that appeared in the correct order (small, large and larger still) and with the correct relative orientations. The only difference was the proportions. A pixel here, a pixel there and the dimensions could easily match. We have never claimed a perfect match but a match that is in very good agreement with what we find at Giza. I have no time for pixel perfectionists. And for good reason. Even if I could show 100% agreement you would STILL deny the Giza-Orion correlation. So, do no think for a moment that I am about to let you waste my time trying to reach 100% match when we don’t even claim such and which wouldn’t convince you anyway.
I defer to my own results here.
Post Edited (13-Feb-12 17:40)