Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your premise, as stated, is entirely flawed (and
> in all likelihood, entirely false):
>
Quote:The diagrammatic derivation methods for the
> descending passages of the Red, Bent, and Khafre
> Pyramids, have been detailed by the author in
> separate essays. There it is explained that the
> designs of these three pyramids appear to each be
> based upon a diagrammatic 'squaring' of the
> circle, a squaring that is done both in terms of
> the circle's area and the circle's circumference.
> (emphasis added)
>
>
> As a result, everything that follows from that
> premise is also most likely false.
>
> Coincidences are not evidence. Finding more
> coincidences does not bolster the assertion that
> the first coincidence is now to be considered
> "evidence". Measurements, alignments, or
> correlations alone cannot prove anything of
> consequence regarding intent; only that the
> measurement itself was intended. The reason for
> the choice of the measurement, however, cannot be
> proven simply from measurements or correlations
> themselves.
>
> According to the evidence we posses, the shape of
> the Egyptian pyramid (stepped or smooth) has
> nothing whatsoever to do with circles, spheres or
> any other round shape. To understand Egyptian
> pyramids, one must study the people who built
> them...not the latest version of Autocad.



Imho, the shape of the Egyptian pyramids has everything to do with the simple fact that the pyramid, in those days, was the most logical/efficient geometric body to build as high and as solid possible. A cube with a side of 230 meters is much more vulnerable to natural erosion and to human destruction than a pyramid. I am also convinced that it is easier to build a pyramid with a side of approx. 230 meters than a cube with a side of 230 meters.


Ronald.