As one of the co-authors of "Giza: The Truth", I thought it might be appropriate to make a few points on Chris Dunn's posting of the 4th October to help clarify some issues…

Ref "Drill core No 7", Reid and Brownlee took this photograph themselves, and accordingly were able to spend considerable time examining the core from all angles and in detail. In any case, far more significant is Chris' own admission in his book that ultrasound machining operates primarily via a pounding and not a rotational action, which is what makes the supposed feed rates displayed on the core such a red herring in the first place. Rather than injecting further red herrings, it would be useful if he could elaborate on how he resolves this major dichotomy. On this note it is also fundamental that Brownlee asserts that modern ultrasound cores tend to be totally free of striations.

Ref our supposed suggestion that Chris was "inspired" by the work of Hancock and Mckenty, this was merely "poetic licence" and no great point of significance was intended - as can be seen by the fact that it is Chris' work which receives all the subsequent attention, and not the others'. Nevertheless we are happy to take his reminder of the origins and motivation for his work on board, and adjust our wording accordingly for the next edition of the book.

Ref our supposed "simplistic dismissal of a very detailed and complex engineering subject", we can quite understand Chris being upset at us bracketing him with others who we, clearly somewhat tongue-in-cheek, suggest are suffering from "millennium madness", but it should be quite clear that we attempt to treat his theories on machining with considerably more respect than his general theory about the "Giza Power Plant". This is given only a cursory mention along with other similar theories. However, to suggest that we provide only a simplistic dismissal with no explanation of the "innumerable mysteries of the Great Pyramid" is, I think, stretching the point. If Chris has read all the early chapters, and the relevant appendices which must also be read in order to obtain a full understanding, then I find it impossible to believe that he or anyone else can suggest that we fail to properly evaluate all the supposed anomalies of the Great Pyramid, or to prove that all have a simple explanation within a funerary and ritualistic context - with the possible exception of the "air shafts" which we believe do remain something of an enigma but still have primarily a ritual explanation.

Finally, it may be useful to once again emphasise, since there seems to be a suggestion that we have somehow been "retained" by the orthodox camp, that we initially felt that many of the alternative theories probably were superior to the orthodox, and it was only when we conducted our full research programme for the book that our opinions changed on most issues as a result of our findings and nothing else. As other researchers have delighted in pointing out, we are relative new boys with no official qualifications in Egyptology, so it should I think be clear that we had, and have, no axe to grind either way. Moreover we do leave our minds a little more open to unorthodox possibilities than most Egyptologists where we believe the evidence merits it, for example as regards the elevation of the most massive temple blocks.