fmetrol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4 survey points in a line and "if you measure 40
> cubits from that point . out there you get exactly
> the angle of the pyramid"
>
> For starters not only does Romer know the correct
> length of Khufu's royal cubit but from it he gets
> the exact angle of the pyramid, 51° 50" Some of
> the best survey ever undertaken on Khufu's pyramid
> have not determined the length of the royal cubit.
> They get close but always with + or - tolerance.
>


It's a TV program. I'm sure he's speaking in acceptable generalities.



>
> Romer doesn't need royal cubits with tolerance to
> get his "exact angle". Apparently he maps out his
> grid on a grandscale by ignoring tolerance and
> the multiplying effect that comes with it.

So all he needed to say is that his grid was within a certain set of tolerances and therefore it works to be a technically acceptable statement?

Again, it's a TV program, not a peer reviewed journal submission.



>
> I believe Petrie for all his trouble arrive at +/-
> 7 inches for height.
>


And Romer's work probably puts him within those same tolerances. I see no issue here.



> Now move back to his previous statement about the
> angle of slope taken from the Northern casing
> stones (If you don't recognize them see Jon's
> site).


I've been there. I recognize them.


>
> "Now this angle has to be so precise because if
> your a wee, wee fraction of a degree out where it
> takes off from the bottom you're gunna be yards
> out up in the air, up there"
>
> So is it exactly 51° 50" Mr Romer ... it fits
> your grid. No yards out in his mind now.


They're talking about the nature of accuracy and how being off at the bottom can lead to real problems at the top. Again, it's a TV program.




>
> Contradiction, Manipulation, Deception and just
> plain wrong.


None of that. Generalizations and synopses for a popular audience.



>
> For the data on the casing stones see Petrie.
> For the length of the royal cubit see Petrie.


For the casing stones and royal cubit, we should actually see the structures. Petrie just gives his conclusions based on those observations.

Frankly I did disagree with the idea that having the angle off by a smidge at the bottom would blow out the point at the top. The pyramid was not "finished" to the angles we see on the bottom casing stones as if it were some massively exact endeavor from start to finish.

Instead, the stones were all put up with rough facings. The facings were then smoothed, one block at a time, all the way from top to bottom. The angle of each block didn't actually match the angle of the pyramid... it just matched the angle of the blocks that SURROUNDED it, and the overall average angle of ALL the blocks was probably a seqed 5 1/2.

It's the same kind of "precision" that is misconstrued in the tunneled Descending Passage. It's easy to make it arrow straight. You start with a much smaller opening down the middle, and then carve out the sides until they are all arrow straight. The original passage may have been off by as much as six inches or more, but when they carved back the surfaces to smooth them, they made sure they were all dead on the money.

The "optical precision" of the casing stone joints is ANOTHER claim based on the misunderstanding of the technology that was used to put the stones in place. Since the stones were slab cut from long rows of blocks, they MUST fit back together with near-perfect precision. The saw that cut them apart took out a static amount between two stones that were then put back together when they were assembled on the pyramid construction site. Nothing fancy or mysterious about it... just a byproduct of the technology used to create the pyramid, and not the actual goal of said effort.



Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.