Chris Tedder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi RLH,
>
> "The predetermined angle is up for interpretation
> and it could be to point at stars but then maybe
> not. It’s the line of sight when constructing the
> shafts idea that is creating the problem."
>
>
>
> We do not know for sure what the shafts were
> designed for, so as far as I am concerned,
> everything is up for interpretation, but I don't
> think they would have needed a line of sight to a
> star when constructing the shafts, if they were
> using a predetermined angle.
>
>
>
> RHL: "How did they go back and fill in a level
> and what is keeping the stones above the
> (temporary left out) stone from sliding down to
> the missing space?"
>
>
> Temporary timber struts, standard practice for
> holding back stone blocks. If they made a check
> on the accuracy of the slope between courses 93 to
> 97 over an inclined distance of about 3 - 4m by
> sighting to Thuban, the 'hole' required to allow a
> man who did the sighting to get in and out was
> only about 2.5m deep.
>
> However, although it would have been a nice touch,
> sighting through the shaft itself was not so
> necessary.


They could have



Chris,


'They could have' ..... What you are doing here is actually present to us how YOU would construct the shafts. But you are a 21st man, applying your knowledge/insights/logic on construction-works on a monument that was built by people that lived 4,5 millenia before you.


How can we be sure that the AE actually WERE capable to use the methods you speculate on ?


Imo, RLH is quite right ; the builders of Khufu's pyramid could not see what they were aiming at. He has a firm counter-argument against the concept of 'Orion-aligned' shafts.



Ronald.




sighted to Thuban as
> they approached the top, not through the shaft
> itself, but outside on a level around course 90 as
> a final check, so they could be reasonably certain
> the top end of the shaft would be facing an area
> of the sky where Thuban would appear, and then
> simply make another right angled triangle template
> used with a plumb line to check the slope of the
> final set of inclined blocks.
>
> The only reason I'm suggesting a possible final
> sighting check, is because of the difference
> between the overall angle of 32.6 degs for the top
> 55m section, and the very top 11m section that has
> an angle of 31.2 degs. The 31.2 deg angle of the
> top 11m section means the top end of the shaft was
> facing an area of the sky where the North or Pole
> Star, Thuban appeared at its highest point due
> north c. 2570 BC.
>
> On the opposite side of the pyramid, the top of
> the south shaft was facing an area of the sky
> where the distinctive 3-star asterism in the
> centre of Orion appeared at its highest point in
> the sky due south - both shafts have the same
> astronomically derived date consistent with the
> reign of Khufu (2589 - 2566 +-50 years)
>
> CT
>