Lehner gives sidelengths 220m, height 105m and angle of 43 deg 22 minutes. (1997)

Edwards gives sidelengths of 722 ft, height of 343 ft and angle of 43 deg 36 minutes (rev. ed. 1985)

Baines and Malek give sidelengths of 220m, height of 104m and angle of 43 deg 22 minutes (1980).

As far as I know, the sidelengths of 220m (420 cubits) are not in dispute. An angle of 45 deg would require a height of 110m (210 cubits). I do not think subsistence can possibly explain a difference in height of 5-6 meters. To begin with, we must be talking about subsistence in the middle of the pyramid while the outer edges at ground level remained essentially at their original elevation. Even if the interior blocks deteriorated, I do not think their mass could be compressed vertically. It had nowhere to go in the solid masonry of the interior of the pyramid. Also, there is no evidence of deterioration of the interior blocks of the pyramid. Even the exposed blocks in the interior that are cracked over the empty spaces of the passages show no evidence of displacement.

If the bedrock below the middle of the pyramid sank 5-6 meters, it would have had a devestating effect on the chambers at ground level in the middle of the pyramid. The cracking of the blocks above the open spaces of the passages without any displacement of the blocks is not in the same ballpark as the destruction that would have been caused by uneven subsistence of 5-6 meters below the center of the pyramid graduating up to no subsistence at the outside edges of the pyramid at ground level. All of the chambers and passages would have been totally demolished. Instead, we see the beutiful corbelled chamber in essentially perfect condition. This type of subsistence would have stretched the length of the entrance passage by at least a few meters from the outside of the pyramid to it's terminus near the middle of the pyramid at ground level. Since rock does not stretch, there would be horrible gaps and offsets in the passage blocks, but there are none. All of the blocks of the pyramid would be tilted towards the center. The slope of this tilt at ground level would be 10 cubits down for 210 cubits run at ground level, and the 10 cubits of subsistence would amount to an even greater inward slope for the blocks at higher levels as the sidelengths shortened. There is no evidence of this. In my opinion, if the 45 degree angle of the pyramid is correct, the surveys giving a completed height of 104-105 m must simply be rejected altogether.

PS to Kanga:

Petrie gives the slope of the bent satellite as 44 deg 34 minutes here:

[digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de]