> Again, this says more about your own view MJT than the reality
> of the situation.
> What it is - and it goes for a lot of people in this world - is
> that you do not like to face up to any kind of 'uncertainty'.
> This fear of 'uncertainty' and the 'unknown' by the little ego
> which will often fight tooth and nail for everything to remain
> the way it is and has always been so that it feels safe in the
> 'certain' cozy little world it has made for itself, is a
> collective neurosis shared by many of those on here who have
> challenged the facts and theories we are presenting in the book
> - more-so those, who instead of offering any constructive
> critique, have even tried to attack Scott and I by using all
> kinds of cleverly thought out ploys, spins and tactics; even
> seizing on the semantics and chalking up "brownie points" in
> who has the highest intellect to undermine us and make us look
> foolish - just in case we are right or seen as right by the
> majority of people who read the book . . . if we should be so
Many thanks for the rank amateur psycho-analysis of my approach to the subject matters in your and Scott’s book – pity you are talking out of the back of your head, as the saying goes, but never mind, eh.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I have bought and am currently reading through ‘The Giza Prophecy’.
Ironically, and especially in light of your disparaging comments about me and my leanings towards mainstream Egyptology, I think that you and Scott have done very well indeed with chapter 2, ‘Something Amiss’.
I find it most pleasing that somebody has at last taken the trouble to point out extensively – and quite succinctly so, IMO – the various and frustrating anomalies in the mainstream Egyptology view of the pyramids of the early dynasties.
Rather ironically, Gary, I am adding the finishing touches to a hypothesis on the planning of the Great Pyramid and its passages and chambers and their respective features (a work I started in the late 1970s).
It’s a hypothesis that blows a very large hole in the current mainstream views on this pyramid.
But don’t get too excited by this, Gary, because it also blows a very large hole in your and Scott’s ‘Giza Prophecy’ work.
You see, Gary, my disagreeing with your views and hypotheses does not mean that I agree with the Egyptologists’ views and hypotheses.
Now then, why have you ignored completely my point about it being necessary to demonstrate practically how these vast geometric patterns were surveyed with such (alleged) accuracy in order to rule out coincidence?
What is your stance on this?
For example, do you believe it to be unnecessary to know how these patterns were laid out on the ground?
So few answers - and not one of them mine.