Chris

Sorry to hear about your PC problems; I guess it is better to resume this discussion late than never. I was unable to trace the reference to your position on the age of the Great Pyramid on p. 71 - I have the Bear & Co version and cannot find it there. Nevertheless you have clarified that you do not believe it should be taken out of context with its countertparts.

You have been very eloquent in suggesting that in your view the technological context should take precedence over the archaeological. I do not have a problem with at least accepting that the two should be taken together, although the debate about advanced technology per se is clearly awaiting further investigation, especially for example of the Stocks/Nova work. However in this correspondence I am concentrating specifically on your power plant theory, and to that end you have singularly failed to answer the other question I put to you previously, which becomes key if you accept that all the major pyramids must be taken in the same context. To restate:  

"On p. 95 of GPP you discuss the quality of the sarcophagus in the Second Pyramid. The implication of this analysis, and that in other parts of your book, is that none of these early pyramids were funerary edifices. Yet it is quite clear that neither the Second Pyramid, nor any of the others, has the same detailed features as the Great Pyramid (e.g. the shafts, grand gallery, chambers high up in the superstructure etc.) which allow you to postulate that it is a power plant. So what do you think the purpose of these other pyramids was, since presumably you cannot stretch them into being power plants as well?"

I trust we will not have to wait another six months to clear this up?

Best regards

Ian