PROOF OF GOD

WILLOWTREE - a clarification:The 5449 statement is evidence for a supernatural origin of the pyramid.We are asking for the evidence that the pyramid is 5449 PI in height.Do you understand?

Hi WILLOWTREE,I checked out the links you provided.Regarding: http://www.thairuralnet.org/sunit/pyramid2.htmlIf I were you, I probably wouldn't reference this particular site. This is a criticism of the site, not you. The site uses at least five different pyramid heightsin the course of its discussion - far from consistent. It appears that each time a height needs to be stated, the site chooses the one that will give them the desired result in the calculation they are doing. The site also doesn't state how measurements were obtained, and many statements directly contradict assertions you have made in this thread - so it does NOT defend your sources as you claim.The Petrie site DOES contain the kind of information we are interested in for this discussion. As you state, the height is much higher than your claim - the Petrie measurement apparently includes the phantom capstone, and so is irrelevant for direct comparison.We should probably wait until you get the methods and calculations from your sources to continue - hopefully they are at least as detailed as those in the Petrie site.Thanks.

Please think about this for a moment, WILLOWTREE - you are asking us to look at a source and only believe the part that you want us to believe, and that the rest in incorrect. If you yourself agree that 95% of the site is incorrect, why should we believe the 5% that you are using as evidence?This is why I said I wouldn't use it as a source if I were you - it is obviously flawed and in most cases contradicts what you have been saying (in addition to contradicting itself).Your sources should be reliable, not a mishmash of figures that you pick and choose from... What part of "hopefully they are at least as detailed as those in the Petrie site" didn't you understand?

WILLOWTREE- As a clarification: I believe you DID address the issue of use of the term "altar," but you DID NOT address the issue of the timing/future tense of Isaiah referring to an existing structure. Again, your link does NOT match your argument, since Russell apparently believes that the Pyramid was God's creation, though the site describes potential disputes in interpretation and math.Anderson is arguing that there is no Biblical link to the Pyramid, which is the opposite of Russell's assertions - if anything, you've shown that Anderson is indeed thinking for himself, and is not following the teaching of Russell on this point.Whether or not you realize it, you've been posting links that contradict and refute your own arguments - this is not the first time...

Yes, especially since the person WILLOWTREE is calling fraudulent DOES believe that the pyramid is God's creation...

Interesting, WILLOWTREE - I believe what Rutherford's "Rectification Factor" may possibly represent the height of the phantom capstone, and that the 5813 number refers to the height of the pyramid's geometric apex (same as the total height assuming a capstone).Does the text give any indication that this is the case?Also when were the measurements made, and by whom?

WILLOWTREE- you should clarify-From your message #258: From your most recent message: Which one of your sources do you want us to believe for these calculations, Rutherford, Petrie, or just the one that gives us the correct answer for a given problem?

I hope you realize you still need to provide us with how Rutherford came up with the Rectification Factor, since it is the measurement of a structure that doesn't exist, the phantom capstone.If he made some sort of estimation of the size difference between apex and platform, that is problematic since an estimation is not equivalent to a valid measurement. Furthermore, if he derived the Rectification Factor from the location of the original door, that is just as invalid, since door location has nothing to do with measuring the pyramid's height (even if the measurements are the same, both need to be measured independently - one cannot be assumed from the other).Perhaps if you provide some details on the "Rectification Factor" we can figure these things out.Also, please comment on the erosion issue now that you have your sources (specifically how the measurements Rutherford made after centuries of erosion should be taken as the true measurements).Thanks.

Wm Scott,I'm glad you were able to respond to what I feel was a fairly prejudiced personal attack - I'm also glad you did it in a level-headed way that taught me a bit of history.Thanks.

I found the following regarding the "Rectification Factor": The Rectification Factor appears to be a "symbolic number" derived from measurements within the pyramid.If this is the true nature of the derivation of the Rectification Factor, it CANNOT be used to calculate the height of the pyramid.It would be like me using the distance from my front door to my dining room table to calculate the height of my house - it is illogical.In light of this info, we definitely need more info on the Rectification Factor calculation and how it pertains to the height measurement.

WILLOWTREE - setting aside the technical issues of precise measurements:Please explain how Rutherford determined the Rectification Factor (see also my posts #489 and particularly #491).If Rutherford used internal measurements of the pyramid to determine its height, as is implied by quotes in my above posts, it doesn't matter if the measurements were made to ten-thousandths of inch or not.The logic behind those measurements are flawed no matter how precise they are...

Thanks for letting me know - I just wanted to make sure you hadn't been distracted by the ten-thousandths-of-an-inch argument...

Hey WILLOWTREE-I see you have again posted the use of the "Rectification Factor" to calculate the height of the pyramid.I am still waiting patiently regarding the source of this number.The little I was able to find on-line states that the Rectification Factor is a measurement of internal structures of the pyramid, and so it has no place in a calculation of the external height of the pyramid.Again, if this is not so, please provide the measurements and calculations that were used to derive the Rectification Factor.I also have read the last fifty or so posts in the thread and must say that I am disappointed to see that you have not posted any more evidence, and have instead been reposting the same assertions. I'm still not sure that you understand the nature of "evidence". (Perhaps reread the part of this thread where a few of us tried to explain it to you.)The posting of a figure is not trustworthy evidence, it is merely the posting of someone else's assertion until we know how the figure is derived. Posting the fact that Rutherford spent years in Egypt in no way makes his figures reliable - an expert survey team with advanced equipment could get more reliable measurements in an hour than someone with no training or equipment that lived their entire life in the shadow of the pyramid. I think that you want someone to post a reference that specifically says Rutherford is wrong - in a way some have done that by posting the measurements of others, it comes down to a he said/he said argument.Perhaps what you don't understand is that the analysis of someone's scientific method can prove them wrong; in other words, if there are mathematical mistakes in Rutherford's calculations (2+2=5) that we can show, we don't need to cite an outside expert source.For example if Rutherford's Rectification Factor is a measure of an internal chamber, it has no place in an external height calculation, and therefore his height calculation is unproven.Please provide any info you can regarding the Rectification Factor.Thanks.

I will if you show where I've been hyprocritical.If someone found a fossil and told me it was 1,678,042 years old, I (and any self-respecting scientist) would ask them to provide the methodology used to arrive at such a figure, and examine it critically.It appears that you may be the one practicing a double-standard, since you self-admittedly do not understand how Rutherford made the measurements and calculations, but take them on faith nonetheless. Why so much faith in Rutherford's work, and an apparent absolute denial of the work of other scientists, historians, mathematicians, biblical scholars...?(Though as I've said several times before - if you want to discuss evolution, do it someplace other than this thread.)I look forward to the "Rectification Factor" measurements and calculations.

WILLOWTREE claims: Are you serious? We replied to each other several times regarding your erosion comments - remember the whole issue with you first using "is" to describe the 5449 SI height of the pyramid, and then you switched to "was" (and now I've noticed you are using "is" again.)From your post #271 The real reason I am bringing this up is because on more than one occasion you promised to respond to me on the nature of erosion after checking your sources.Your argument: My comment was that it is illogical to surmise that any external stone structure would be completely immune to erosion during centuries of environmental exposure.You seem to promise to get back to me, and then later assert that an argument didn't exist.Hopefully you won't do that with the derivation of the Rectification Factor.(Also, I wouldn't mind hearing what your sources have to say about erosion.)