Hi Hermione >


> There are quite a lot of practical problems in
> marking things out with cords that are really
> somewhat lengthy, though. The base of the GP is
> 440 cubits, so that's a 110 cubit (over 50m)
> cord.

Using a cord would be highly impractical--if not impossible.

The task of laying out the plan on site exists regardless of the source of the plan. I think what easily gets confused is the difference between developing the plan and transfering the plan to the site. Whether the plan is developed using squares, triangles, circles, etc., it would be done as a scale model (either 2D or 3D).

Once the plan is finished, the construction points would be laid out on site from a beginning bench mark such as a corner of the pyramid. The task of setting this bench mark is not very difficult either. It could be simply a matter of running a straight line South from the West base of G1 X cubits, then West Y cubits to the corner of G2. Any intervening walls or structures can be spanned vertically or worked around horizontally using very simple survey methods. As I have expressed before, I see nothing exceptionally difficult about the process.


> All you've really demonstrated, so it appears to
> me, is that you can use a computer to draw arcs
> and then find a fit to parts of Giza; in that
> respect, therefore, it seems little different from
> Graham Chase's alleged mathematical proof.

I think it would be more accurate to say that I have demonstrated a method using a computer as a tool. I have not demonstrated that a computer can always find a method.

The
> apexes of the subsidiary pyramids seem to be on a
> common axis. However, that axis doesn't run as
> closely parallel to Khufu's pyramid as the axis of
> Menkaure's subsidiary pyramid runs to his pyramid.
> Considering that there was a high temenos wall
> around the main pyramids, wouldn't they have just
> moved an appropriate distance away, and then laid
> the subsidiary pyramids out on a common axis?

They could have. But, I submit that the probability of of all the pyramids fitting the "quarter-base" scheme is so remote that it would be unreasonable to dismiss the idea.
Again, I will restate that I am open to the possibility that the "quarter-base" method may be a manifestation of an unknown underlying method.




C. Wayne Taylor
Richmond, Virginia USA