Hi Jon,


Thanks for an interesting post - full of valuable info on a fascinating issue that impartially brings out both sides of the argument. It seems impossible to say which side of the argument is correct though.

John Legon makes a reasonable case against the idea of a change of plan for Khafra's or Menkaura's pyramid: [www.hallofmaat.com]


Concerning the 'Giza Diagonal'

The Giza / Iunu alignment proposed by Goedicke, Lehner, Verner and endorsed by Bárta does have a small problem. Its based on a 1216 cubit (637m) long straight line through the SE corners of the three pyramids.

The three SE corners are not in a straight line though. A line between the SE corners of G1 and G3 misses the SE corner of G2 by 12m (39'), and a line between the SE corners of G1 and G2, extended to G3, misses the SE corner of G3 by 23m (76') - either G2 is set back from the line about 12m (39ft), or G3 is offset to the east by 23m (76ft).


As you showed however, the larger Khafra pyramid has a better fit, and this means the 'diagonal', a line from the SW corner of G1 to the SW corner of G3 has an angle of about 43.3 degs E of N.

This is virtually identical (to within 1/20th of a deg) to the corner (arris) angle (43.3 degs) of Khafra's pyramid.


The alternative 'Giza Diagonal' I proposed over a year ago (link: [www.hallofmaat.com] ), is not affected by any hypothetical change of plan to Khafra's pyramid, and its a simple 45 deg (sqd 7) line, 2000 cubits long, that extended 22 times its length (or 100 times the length of the 440 cubit long side of Khufu's pyramid) to 44000 cubits, reaches Iunu to the northeast, where its aligned with the area of the main temple compounds (see Quirke 2000: 112; fig. 54 for map).


diagram of alternative Giza diagonal: [okadct.googlepages.com]

CT




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2007 04:57PM by Chris Tedder.