Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ronald,
>
> Even if I didn't know "exactly how the pyramid was
> built", it would not change the fact that ancient
> Egyptians had a very specific reason for building
> the chambers inside the pyramids the way they did.
> It takes very little research to figure that
> out.
>
> Now, let's put an end to this discussion once and
> for all.
>
> If indeed the pyramid of Khufu, specifically, had
> been built up sort of "willy nilly", just laying
> one layer atop another, with the chambers being
> decided as they went along, and the course sizes
> being a product of nothing but the number of
> stones that got dragged into position that day,
> then you have to answer something very specific
> here:
>
> How come the first course of the pyramid... the
> one that, quite obviously, was placed first in the
> pyramid and was most obvious for everyone
> (including the king) to see first hand... is
> (virtually) 1/100th the finished height of the
> final structure?
>
> I couldn't immediately remember where I had read
> this (as usual, I pay no attention to the author
> and I still don't have my library digitized).
> It's actually kind of funny as it turns out.
>
Quote:...it was noted that the first course of
> the Khufu pyramid -- comprising the tallest core
> blocks in the structure -- is 57.6 inches tall on
> the southwest corner and 58.6 inches on the
> northeast. This first course is almost
> twenty-percent taller than the next tallest
> courses, the second and thirty-fifth. Taken on
> its own, this number appears relatively
> meaningless. However, it is not beyond reason to
> conclude that this odd number, which is not a
> "whole cubit" number, is symbolic in nature. the
> first course is almost exactly one-one hundredth
> of the overall height of the finished pyramid --
> 5,776 inches. If, indeed, this was intentional,
> it shows that the Egyptians who built the pyramid
> knew before the project began exactly how high the
> finished monument would be.
>
> KMT, Fall, 2002. Counting the Stones in Khufu's
> Pyramid at Giza
>
> There was no guesswork here. This monument was
> meticulously planned from the outset. If that's
> not good enough for you, then you should probably
> take a look at www.cheops.org. Rudolph has an
> excellent section on the gridwork plan that was,
> in all likelihood, used to lay out the entire
> architecture of Khufu's pyramid. The 7:11 grid
> is, within building tolerances, a perfectly valid
> explanation for how they originally designed the
> building on papyrus and then scaled it up to the
> final project.
>
> Anthony



I quickly post this reply from my office.

Thanks for your clarification, but I do not see any reason to end this discussion. You always emphasize that discussions should be based on facts/evidence. Well, I am sure
there is no AE evidence of Rudolph's gridwork plan, which does not mean I do not believe
in such a plan ...

The height of the first course of the pyramid being virtually 1/100th the finished height of the final structure indeed is an intriguing/astonishing observation. If this is related to a pre-planned height of the overall monument, than this too is subject for debate, because the thickness of the courses vary considerably. Of course, there was erosion, but still.

As for your remark on my 'reading-habits', I have not sufficiënt time at the moment to read
and comment your and other's comments thoroughly. But this is no reason to classify me in the group of 'ignorants' or to classify me as someone who does not respect the AE.


Regards,
Ronald.