# Thread: Is Egypt and it's Pyramids "The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy" ?

1. Member
Join Date
May 2018
Location
Burlington Ontario Canada
Posts
22
Originally Posted by grapes
So, you've got the number of Mercury years in an Earth year, multiplied by 1000, and you get the number of inches in that pyramid?? The ancients encoded a measurement in kiloinches, is that what you're claiming?
Those numbers you quote namely 1/240846 or 4.15213 ARE JUST RATIOS. And yes the base of G3 could be said to equal 1000 times the Earth / Mercury ratio where Earth = 365.25 and Mercury = 87.96 and remember the inch we are using is the inch of The Great Pyramid special case. It will become a bit clearer in the next post when I will show you the reason for 4152 and what it entails. It would be a sad pyramid if it was only 4.152 inches now wouldn't it. So the scale has been bumped up by a thousand.

db

2. Originally Posted by Ahatmose
For note I have found all planets and their ratios and their semi major axis' at Giza.
With your approach, that is not exactly surprising. You can probably find your birthday "encoded" there as well.

3. First thing is that Egyptians did not use the decimal system, I simple look at Wikipedia shows that.

No really the Egyptians like all their neighbors used the sky as a why to explain their religion. Seti I tomb and a really detailed painting of the night sky on its ceiling.

4. Originally Posted by Ahatmose
Hmm seems to me that the scientific way is trial and error or doing a number of experiments. Now just so I understand this. I am supposed to know which ratios I am going to find and where ? Seriously the only way to find hidden ratios is to explore all avenues.
No, exploring all avenues just ensures that you'll turn up something. The huge number of hypotheses implied by your list of potential data points and mathematical manipulations suggests very strongly that the correlations you have found are due to random chance. They seem significant only because you've kept the numbers you like, and discarded all the unsuccessful trials and manipulations you've made over the last 20 years.

And, coming at it from the opposite direction, why do you suppose the Egyptians would adopt this convoluted approach to recording astronomical knowledge? Why didn't they just ... you know ... write it down?

Grant Hutchison

5. You do know that the pyramid was larger and orientated differently in the past? There is supposed to be an outer shell of Tura-limestone that is largely missing. Those blocks were about 50* inches thick and were variable in thickness to make the pyramid conform better to north-south and east-west than it does now. They were good with math and measurement, but...

*edit - for the Great Pyramid anyway. 125+/-25 cm.

6. Originally Posted by grant hutchison
<snip>
And, coming at it from the opposite direction, why do you suppose the Egyptians would adopt this convoluted approach to recording astronomical knowledge? Why didn't they just ... you know ... write it down?

Grant Hutchison
And just to accent that point, Egyptians did write down astronomical knowledge. For example, there are 'Diagonal star tables'. (wikipedia link, 2nd link)
Beginning with the 9th Dynasty, ancient Egyptians produced 'Diagonal star tables', which were usually painted on the inside surface of wooden coffin lids.[8] This practice continued until the 12th dynasty.[9] These 'Diagonal star tables' or star charts are also known as 'diagonal star clocks'; in the past they have also been known as 'star calendars', or 'decanal clocks'.[10] These star charts featuring the paintings of Egyptian deities, decans, constellations, and star observations are also found on the ceilings of tombs and temples.

7. Astronomy had a particle use then as wee, it help many groups back then know when the season were going to change, great stuff to know when you have to plant crops or hunting.

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,011
Originally Posted by Ahatmose
Hi all I hope I am welcomed here. What I propose is a continuation of the ideas of Clive Ross, now sadly deceased 2009, who believed with his whole heart that Giza was "The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy"....
This is the Giza pyramid complex. There is nothing explicitly related to astronomy in the structures, e.g. observatories There are obvious alignments to terrestrial compass points. There may be possible alignments to stars that were significant to the ancient Egyptians.

Your OP is numerology, at best finding accidental matches between building dimensions and astronomy that it was impossible for the ancient Egyptians to know about.
The "one half the base of G1 and called it the semi major axis of Mercury and multiplied it by Phi I got the semi major axis of Venus" math is wrong.
Phi (the golden ratio) = 1.6183.
semi major axis of Mercury = 57,909,050 km
semi major axis of Venus = 108,208,000 km
Ratio= 1.8685 (or Phi * semi major axis of Mercury = 93714215.615 which is not the semi major axis of Venus)

Your OP even says that! Your extra bit of math does not get Phi and so disproves your assertion.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-May-30 at 01:44 AM.

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,011
Originally Posted by Ahatmose
.732050807 / 227,939,100 = 7.5987437-9th x 186,062,100 = 1.413838 (sq rt of 2 = 1.414214)
Ahatmose: What s so important about doing some calculations to get an arbitrary number of 1.413838?
I could do your calculation replacing the square root of 3 with 1.7341 and get nearly that number. Does that make 1.7341 special? What about 1.733? What about 2? etc.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-May-29 at 11:30 PM.

10. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,011
Originally Posted by Ahatmose
So here is what we have now for the three inner planets as ratios:
Hi Ahatmose, ratios to what?

11. Originally Posted by Reality Check
Ahatmose: What s so important about doing some calculations to get an arbitrary number of 1.413838?
I could do your calculation replacing the square root of 3 with 1.7341 and get nearly that number. Does that make 1.7341 special? What about 1.733? What about 2? etc.
Actually, I was going to ask about that myself, but my math is the worst. I tend to know shapes rather than numbers.

I know that 1.732050807... is some sort of constant for a spiral shape. If you make a bunch of triangles to form a spiral, the first triangle's hypotenuse is sqrt1, the next is sqrt2, and the third is sqrt3. If you keep going, the last triangle (hypotenuse=sqrt17) is the last to not to overlap the first. If you keep winding, the average winding distance starts to approach pi. It isn't surprising you get sqrt3 and pi dropping out of that. Where did 1.732050807 come from?

I am slightly confused by the exactness of 9068.9968. 8 is too many sig figs for building stuff out of rock. To make these sorts of measurements and calculations by hand, which is something average surveyors are taught to do, would be 25 page hand written in very small text or more. Make a mistake some place, good luck. I have lived that. Someone in the 1880s would probably be faster at fixing it, but it is super annoying even if you are good. I have a hard time picturing someone doing it in hieroglyphics, because they had a distinct symbol for every number and as already noted, didn't use decimal math or inches.

As near as I can tell, to Egyptians, "9068.9968" would be rendered a lot like 9068+1/2+1/3+1/7+1/49+1/
31471940+1/2872400689882500. If you think like that I guess it would work, but I'd also guess that they would use different units or rounder numbers so that doesn't happen.

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,011
Originally Posted by Ahatmose
And as a final image for now I would like to post this image of my discoveries of our solar system. I doubt you will find this in any text book.
The image would not be in any textbook because that image is quite wrong, Ahatmose. The Solar System has more than 4 planets. Undefined "Units" which seem unrelated to measured distances from the Sun (aphelion or perihelion). A meter, cubit or Megalithic Yard are not millions of kilometers long.

13. Ahatmose, could please clarify (since it's been hasked twice, once by myself and once by Grant Hutchison) why the Egyptians should have used megastructures instead of papyrus to pass information along ?
And using units of measure (inches, which were loosely defined some three thousand years after the pyramids where built...) from the future, to boot ?

14. Member
Join Date
May 2018
Location
Burlington Ontario Canada
Posts
22
Originally Posted by UntrainedObserver
Ahatmose, could please clarify (since it's been hasked twice, once by myself and once by Grant Hutchison) why the Egyptians should have used megastructures instead of papyrus to pass information along ?
And using units of measure (inches, which were loosely defined some three thousand years after the pyramids where built...) from the future, to boot ?
Good morning all.

Solfe asked what is so special about 1.7732050807 ... this is the square root of 3. You also asked about my value of 9068.9968. This has been explained fully in one of my posts. It is a mathematical expression of a result using specific dimensions for a square, As I said I have posted a complete explanation. Actually I just looked while re-reading my post and you typed 1.7732050807 when it should be 1.732050807.

Quote by Reality Check: "The image would not be in any textbook because that image is quite wrong, Ahatmose. The Solar System has more than 4 planets. Undefined "Units" which seem unrelated to measured distances from the Sun (aphelion or perihelion). A meter, cubit or Megalithic Yard are not millions of kilometers long. "

Reality Check do you know what a ratio means ? The image show that as ratios to each other the diagram shows the matching measures. It is not releavant what is used to measure the distances as no matter what unit of measure is chosen as a base the ratios will never change. Also Kepler, do you know who Kepler is, based his entire Third law on the semi major axis' of the planets. If I am wrong then so is he and that will upset a lot of apple carts in the physics and astronomy circles.

Quote by Reality Check: Hi Ahatmose, ratios to what?

Er .. to each other with the semi major axis of Mercury assigned the unit 1 or when assigned a value of 1 cubit we get ... well just look at the diagram again

Quote from Reality Check: What s so important about doing some calculations to get an arbitrary number of 1.413838?
I could do your calculation replacing the square root of 3 with 1.7341 and get nearly that number. Does that make 1.7341 special? What about 1.733? What about 2? etc.

Finding a relationship between two neighboring planets is hardly arbitrary.

Another quote by Reality Check: This is the Giza pyramid complex. There is nothing explicitly related to astronomy in the structures, e.g. observatories There are obvious alignments to terrestrial compass points. There may be possible alignments to stars that were significant to the ancient Egyptians.

Your OP is numerology, at best finding accidental matches between building dimensions and astronomy that it was impossible for the ancient Egyptians to know about.
The "one half the base of G1 and called it the semi major axis of Mercury and multiplied it by Phi I got the semi major axis of Venus" math is wrong.
Phi (the golden ratio) = 1.6183.
semi major axis of Mercury = 57,909,050 km
semi major axis of Venus = 108,208,000 km
Ratio= 1.8685 (or Phi * semi major axis of Mercury = 93714215.615 which is not the semi major axis of Venus)

Your OP even says that! Your extra bit of math does not get Phi and so disproves your assertion.

Please re-read what I wrote. Phi is involved when the semi major axis (this is the average distance from The Sun) of Mercury is defined as 1/2 the sq rt of 3 . When this is done Venus becomes Phi. Phi is also involved with G2 (Pyramid of Khafre) in so much as when we define the base of G1 (Great Pyramid) as the sq rt of 3 then G2 will equal the value of Phi. Also if we divide Phi (1.618033988) by 1/2 sq rt of 3 (0.866025) the result is 1.8684 as compared with 1.8685 Close enough for my liking.

Quote from Strange: With your approach, that is not exactly surprising. You can probably find your birthday "encoded" there as well.

Interesting you would say that when all I am doing is dividing what is on the ground in measurements.

Quote from Untrained Observer: Ahatmose, could please clarify (since it's been hasked twice, once by myself and once by Grant Hutchison) why the Egyptians should have used megastructures instead of papyrus to pass information along ? And using units of measure (inches, which were loosely defined some three thousand years after the pyramids where built...) from the future, to boot ?

The reason I feel is quite obvious. The chance of a large stone monument surviving the ages compared to a flimsy papyrus makes stone the logical choice. There are virtually no papyri that have survived from The 3rd and 4th Dynasties.

Quote from Swift: And just to accent that point, Egyptians did write down astronomical knowledge. For example, there are 'Diagonal star tables

Please be aware that there are virtually no records from The 3rd and 4th Dynasties. Any star charts or anything else is from a later period. Wiki states that beginning with THE 9TH DYNASTY star charts were made.

I hope that answers most of the questions up to now and will continue with more information soon.

Regards
Don Barone
Last edited by Ahatmose; 2018-May-30 at 12:43 PM.

15. Originally Posted by grapes
So, you've got the number of Mercury years in an Earth year, multiplied by 1000, and you get the number of inches in that pyramid?? The ancients encoded a measurement in kiloinches, is that what you're claiming?
Those numbers you quote namely 1/240846 or 4.15213 ARE JUST RATIOS. And yes the base of G3 could be said to equal 1000 times the Earth / Mercury ratio where Earth = 365.25 and Mercury = 87.96 and remember the inch we are using is the inch of The Great Pyramid special case. It will become a bit clearer in the next post when I will show you the reason for 4152 and what it entails. It would be a sad pyramid if it was only 4.152 inches now wouldn't it. So the scale has been bumped up by a thousand.
I was talking about the "4152 (+ or -) inches" that I quoted from your post.

I see that you did mention "pyramid inches" yesterday. It would be nice if you were to specify them when you're using something other than the usual inch (2.54cm exactly).

Originally Posted by Ahatmose
At Giza the builders wanted to show The Solar System and they used an interesting number to measure it. Many think it was "The Cubit" but it was not. In my estimation The Builders used an interesting number ... they used what we now call "an inch". It was not one of our inches but was derived from a simple and perfect square and has everything to do with mathematics.

16. Member
Join Date
May 2018
Location
Burlington Ontario Canada
Posts
22
Originally Posted by grapes
I was talking about the "4152 (+ or -) inches" that I quoted from your post.

I see that you did mention "pyramid inches" yesterday. It would be nice if you were to specify them when you're using something other than the usual inch (2.54cm exactly).
Hi grapes. Since I have no idea the exact relationship of my theoretical inch and the actual inch in use now I have to assume for the time being they are interchangeable because they appear to be so close they may in fact be identical. The assigning of 4152 as the ratio of Earth to Mercury x 1000 I must confess is a very late addition to my work. Again I must try to emphasize that everything I post is meant to be related to ratios. Of course the ratio is not 4152 "inches" but is a rendition of this ratio where 1 inch on the ground now becomes 1/1000th of the actual ratio of Earth to Mercury in days in their year or 365.25 / 87.969. It is symbolic and always we must think ratio and that the inch in question relates back to the diagram I posted that showed how I arrived at 9068.9968. And just as a thought on 2.54 cm = 1 inch that is a very late determination by ... well who knows who and why this was done. Likewise The AU or Astronomical Unit for some strange reason is no longer the semi major axis of Earth ... go figure, However if we divided 227,909,100 (Mars semi major axis) by 57,909,050 (Mercury semi major axis) we get 3.93564 (rounded) and the reciprocal is 0.25409. So could we use 2.5409 cm per inch ? Just a thought and I really don't want to pursue this train of thought.

Regards
Don Barone

17. Originally Posted by Ahatmose
The reason I feel is quite obvious. The chance of a large stone monument surviving the ages compared to a flimsy papyrus makes stone the logical choice. There are virtually no papyri that have survived from The 3rd and 4th Dynasties.
So you think they wanted posterity to find their astronomical textbook, hidden in the dimensions of giant buildings? What makes you think that?
And if sending pointless astronomical messages to the far future really was a big deal during the 3rd and 4th Dynasties, why didn't they write them down on stone? With a chisel. In multiple copies. They were very good at stone carving, and it would have avoided the whole giant building / secret formula complication.

Grant Hutchison

18. OK, let's leave aside for a moment the question as to whether the Egyptians incorporated these various values and ratios in the pyramids. How did they determine them in the first place?

How did they measure the semi major axis of Mercury, the semi major axis of Mars, the semi major axis of Ceres, etc.?

19. Member
Join Date
May 2018
Location
Burlington Ontario Canada
Posts
22
Originally Posted by Swift
OK, let's leave aside for a moment the question as to whether the Egyptians incorporated these various values and ratios in the pyramids. How did they determine them in the first place?

How did they measure the semi major axis of Mercury, the semi major axis of Mars, the semi major axis of Ceres, etc.?
Hi Swift. You want me to answer a question about how they knew something when you have yet to agree THAT THEY KNEW the ratios between the planets. Rather pointless I feel to speculate how the knew something you don't really believe they knew.

The fact that you and I do not know how they knew does not preclude the simple fact that they did indeed know it (the various ratios).

All they would need to know is the period of the planets AND Kepler's Third Law. Figuring out the periods is easy by simple observation of the circles and orbits in the night sky. The could easily have observed the length of year of Mercury and Venus and of course Earth is basic (365.25) and Mars can be calculated with simple observations of the night sky as well.. The question then simply becomes did they know Kepler's Third Law ... my answer ... I don't know but I would guess that they did ... how they knew it is an answer I am still searching for but to dismiss the evidence becasue you or I or anyone does not know how they got it should not and can not in a scientific study be a cause for dismissing the evidence.

Regards
Don Barone

20. Originally Posted by Ahatmose
All they would need to know is the period of the planets AND Kepler's Third Law. Figuring out the periods is easy by simple observation of the circles and orbits in the night sky. The could easily have observed the length of year of Mercury and Venus and of course Earth is basic (365.25) and Mars can be calculated with simple observations of the night sky as well.. The question then simply becomes did they know Kepler's Third Law ... my answer ... I don't know but I would guess that they did ... how they knew it is an answer I am still searching for but to dismiss the evidence becasue you or I or anyone does not know how they got it should not and can not in a scientific study be a cause for dismissing the evidence.
Actually, it can. Plausibility is one of the many rules by which scientists judge proposed new hypotheses - does it fit with what we already know? In my own profession, hypotheses supported by initially promising data are unlikely to be adopted if there is no plausible mechanism. Over the years, we've saved a lot of lives by adopting that stance.

In this case, we have no evidence the Egyptians could make the kind of planetary observations that Kepler needed to have before he could derive his laws of planetary motion. That would be a big hit against the "Ancient Egyptian astronomy textbook" hypothesis, even if the data looked promising.

Grant Hutchison

21. Member
Join Date
May 2018
Location
Burlington Ontario Canada
Posts
22
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
So you think they wanted posterity to find their astronomical textbook, hidden in the dimensions of giant buildings? What makes you think that?
And if sending pointless astronomical messages to the far future really was a big deal during the 3rd and 4th Dynasties, why didn't they write them down on stone? With a chisel. In multiple copies. They were very good at stone carving, and it would have avoided the whole giant building / secret formula complication.

Grant Hutchison
Pointless ? Maybe to you but certainly not to me.

And if you could point me to any major building, other than the pyramids that have survived from this era. It is rumored that the facing on The Pyramids contained hieroglyphs that could have told the entire story. I don't believe that for if this were to be true then why is the interior not covered in these hieroglyphs. No Grant the pyramids of The 3rd and 4th Dynasty are set apart from all other things Egyptian. Like Akhenaten they just don't seem to fit into any mold. And for that matter how are we ever to know what may have been in the sarcophagi of the various pyramids. Maybe your tablets ...

The pyramids have stood for at least 4500 years and continue to cause wonderment and speculation. It is for this precise reason that they have been encoded with much more knowledge than I can place on this website. I do not have it all figured out yet. There is so much to find. But a very wise man once said, "Seek and ye shall find" I can guarantee that if you don't even look you are never going to find it. But I can't help but feel that the reason the material was encoded was to tell future generations ... hey we were here, we lived and we died and here is our legacy, here is what we knew, this is how far we had come. Pipe dreams ? Perhaps but the data is there and it is correct and is almost perfect in it's ratios. Call it a big gigantic co-incidence if you want but to say it is not there is totally in error because it is there, not only at Giza but at Sakkara, and at The Pyramid at Meidum and at Dashur with The Red and The Bent Pyramid, all telling the exact same story. If it were just one site then maybe a co-incidence but all four sites telling the same story, showing the same ratios ? Hardly even worth calculating the astronomical odds of that Pun intended.

Regards
Don Barone

22. Member
Join Date
May 2018
Location
Burlington Ontario Canada
Posts
22
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
Actually, it can. Plausibility is one of the many rules by which scientists judge proposed new hypotheses - does it fit with what we already know? In my own profession, hypotheses supported by initially promising data are unlikely to be adopted if there is no plausible mechanism. Over the years, we've saved a lot of lives by adopting that stance.

In this case, we have no evidence the Egyptians could make the kind of planetary observations that Kepler needed to have before he could derive his laws of planetary motion. That would be a big hit against the "Ancient Egyptian astronomy textbook" hypothesis, even if the data looked promising.

Grant Hutchison
Hi Grant I have to disagree. If something keeps recurring and recurring in nature but scientists can't figure out why the data is not thrown out because they don't know the how of it, the logical course is to keep looking for a cause. Do they dismiss the data and move on ? Of course not. Your statements are in my opinion inherently false.

My Hypothesis was derived from data already collected, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Sorry your statements are as I said in my opinion false and misleading.

You and many others dismiss the facts because you can't figure out the cause. This IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC WAY

db

23. Originally Posted by Ahatmose
Pointless ? Maybe to you but certainly not to me.
Yes, pointless. Because the only way we can pull these particular data points out of the structural measurements is if we know the answers already.

Grant Hutchison

24. Member
Join Date
May 2018
Location
Burlington Ontario Canada
Posts
22
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
Yes, pointless. Because the only way we can pull these particular data points out of the structural measurements is if we know the answers already.

Grant Hutchison
EXACTLY ! And that is the point of the whole exercise. That is why it has remained hidden for so very long. No one knew the exact ratios. Now we know and now we can see what they left for us. You are absolutely correct without knowing the answer we could never find the question and The Pyramids have countless questions to answer for us. What this shows me is that they were encoded for the time when we will have reached the level of knowledge that matched The Ancient Builders and were able to understand what they had in fact left for us. .

Regards
Don Barone

25. Originally Posted by Ahatmose
My Hypothesis was derived from data already collected, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Sorry your statements are as I said in my opinion false and misleading.

You and many others dismiss the facts because you can't figure out the cause. This IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC WAY
And yet the approach I describe was responsible for saving a few thousand lives in Europe alone, quite recently, and I was part of that. So please don't point your capital letters at me.

You seem to be forgetting the other part of the argument, which is that your data are unconvincing, for reasons already discussed - without some sort of statistical analysis including all the negative results you've generated while looking for the "positives" you're reporting, we have no a priori reason to believe your results are anything but random chance.
Absent trust in the data, we need some supporting observational evidence, otherwise your hypothesis is dead. But does the hypothesis fit with what we already know about Egyptian culture? Apparently not. At which point it looks like a very shakey hypothesis indeed. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

Grant Hutchison

26. Originally Posted by Ahatmose
EXACTLY ! And that is the point of the whole exercise. That is why it has remained hidden for so very long. No one knew the exact ratios. Now we know and now we can see what they left for us. You are absolutely correct without knowing the answer we could never find the question and The Pyramids have countless questions to answer for us. What this shows me is that they were encoded for the time when we will have reached the level of knowledge that matched The Ancient Builders and were able to understand what they had in fact left for us.
And your evidence to support this gallop of assumptions is ...?

Grant Hutchison

27. Member
Join Date
May 2018
Location
Burlington Ontario Canada
Posts
22
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
And yet the approach I describe was responsible for saving a few thousand lives in Europe alone, quite recently, and I was part of that. So please don't point your capital letters at me.

You seem to be forgetting the other part of the argument, which is that your data are unconvincing, for reasons already discussed - without some sort of statistical analysis including all the negative results you've generated while looking for the "positives" you're reporting, we have no a priori reason to believe your results are anything but random chance.
Absent trust in the data, we need some supporting observational evidence, otherwise your hypothesis is dead. But does the hypothesis fit with what we already know about Egyptian culture? Apparently not. At which point it looks like a very shakey hypothesis indeed. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

Grant Hutchison
Hi Grant this will be my last reply to your posts as it has now become obvious, that like all The Egyptologists I have encountered, that unless it fits neatly into what we know of Egypt, and let's face it we know everything about the 3rd and 4th Dynasty don't we, you are never going to accept the fact that Egypt is The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy short of finding The Astronomical Rosetta Stone. You come up with an argument, I counter that and then you come up with another one and I counter that and then as most do when backed into a corner they simply say ... well The Ancient Builders couldn't have know these things because it doesn't fit into what we know of Egypt. It is a circular argument and I don't know about you but I am getting a bit dizzy and am stepping off this particular merry go round that I have been on many, many times before. Your concerns have been addressed properly and with respect but the merry go round stops now. It is time to move onto to new data.

With kind regards
Don Barone

28. Originally Posted by Ahatmose
Hi Grant this will be my last reply to your posts
If you wish this thread to continue, you will directly answer all relevant questions put to you, including those from Mr. Hutchison. You must also keep your words and tone polite. If you haven't already done so please read our rules, linked below in my signature line.

29. The OP has stated via PM that he no longer wishes to defend his claims in this forum. Thread closed.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•