Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I absolutely agree here. I maintain the 104-m
> height being used is probably the current height,
> post erosion."
>
>
>
> Yes, but we don't know that.
>
> That is why any archaeologist worth his salt will
> not accept any of the current data.
Of course not... it has been excavated to the base only in recent times, though.
>
> If you understood surveying equipment as well, you
> would know that the equipment is not the issue,
> and there is absolutely no reason to assume the
> modern figures are any better than older ones.
Of course there is. From what I recall, the older surveys didn't excavate the pyramid to its actual base. Rather, they chose to use the top angle of the Bent and project it onto the Red, and then create their height dimension from that speculated angle. The erosion only "confirmed" their idea, because the equipment showed what they expected.
This is why a preconceived conclusion can really mess up a research project. As Holmes once stated, "
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts".
>
> You acceptance of the 45 degrees is evidence of
> poor methodology.
No, it is evidence of my ability to understand a new survey with better data based on more complete excavations.
However, you still cling to Pyramid Pi and disproven star shafts, so a debunked measurement of a pyramid should be no surprise, either.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.