Hello Anthony,

You write, ‘The wooden ramp at the base of the Grand Gallery was necessary for your initial conjecture (that the blocks were stored on the floor of the grand gallery), which you then go on to debunk because they wouldn't have fit on the floor of the grand gallery.’

The granite blocks had to have sat between the faces of the ramps on each side of the Queen’s Chamber Passage floor and the Grand Gallery floor.
In the 16.7 feet (horizontally) between the north wall of the Gallery and the start of the Queen’s Chamber Passage the distance between the faces of these ramps varies from 40.8” to 41.6” (Smyth only measured at 4 points)
The maximum width of the granite plugs is 41.6”
This means that the granite plugs could not have been stored on any floor between these ramp faces.
This applies equally to the horizontal floor between the north end of the Grand Gallery and the start of the Queen’s Chamber Passage, and the flooring (whatever its nature and however it was supported) that would have bridged this area.


You write, ‘The ramp was where they were stored.’

Unless you have these blocks improbably sitting above the top of the ramps running down each side of the Gallery, then, as I have said above, they would have sat between the faces of these ramps - and at least one of the three blocks is too wide to have done so.


You write, ‘We already discussed, over a year ago, how the block could be inched down the passage, from behind, by alternating wedges into the opposite side in the back from the one that was binding in the front. You agreed you had not thought of this and were convinced it was a practical solution to the matter. No new evidence has been produced since then, ergo nothing has changed. It is still a practical solution to the challenge.’

That was a year ago.
This last weekend I took into consideration data I did not have back then, i.e. Piazzi Smyth’s measurements of the Ascending passage, the Grand Gallery, and the granite blocks, and the Edgar brothers detailed descriptions of the areas concerned (Great Pyramid Passages 3 Vol. 1924).
This data combined with data from Petrie caused me to realise that there was a practical problem with your solution because the blocks could not fit between the faces of the Grand Gallery ramps, etc., etc.

You may not have any evidence new to you, but I do have evidence new to me.


You write, ‘Now, about your tolerances...
Here's what Petrie has to say about it:
Quote:
The granite plugs are kept back from slipping down by the narrowing of the lower end of the passage, to which contraction they fit. Thus at the lower, or N. end, the plug is but 38.2 wide in place of 41.6 at the upper end
Clearly the plugs fit into an area 41.6 inches wide, and it took a 38.2 inch wide space to get them to stop.
You're now somehow saying that a space of 3 inches is insufficient?

Not at all, Anthony, not at all.
At the lower face of the lowermost block the Passage is 38.2” wide and so, too, is the block.
At the upper face of the uppermost block the Passage is 41.6” wide and so, too, is the block.
This means that in the distance from the top end of the blocks to the bottom of the blocks, the Passage and the blocks narrow from the sides a total 3.4”.
Thus, from the top of the blocks to the bottom of the blocks, the Passage and the blocks narrow in 1.7” on the north side and 1.7” on the south side.
It is quite clear that this uniform narrowing of the width of the Passage and the width of the blocks was done to stop the blocks sliding down into the Descending Passage – and it worked very well indeed.

However, above the granite plugs things are different.
The Passage does not narrow at all and its width varies only slightly from 41.4” to 42.2”.
The point you seem to be missing is that though there is tapering in the blocks, the maximum width of the blocks is greater than the space available to it in the Grand Gallery and the Ascending Passage.


You write, ‘I think you are misreading Petrie's measurements... and I don't think he wrote them well, either, so I don't blame you. The stones aren't 41.6 inches wide... the passage is 41.6 inches wide at the place where the plug stones end. Read it again from my quote above and you'll see how he changes what he's supposedly measuring in mid-sentence.

You wish.


You write, ‘Here's a picture of that "upper end", by the way. It's frankly amazing that anybody thinks they could get an accurate reading of it under nearly any circumstances, after Mamun hacked the stuffing out of it to get past it.’

Smyth and Petrie managed it okay.


You write, ‘So, the blocks fit into the Grand Gallery for storage, and they easily fit into the shaft with over 3 inches to spare on the side. (38.2 inches at the bottom, versus 41.6 at the top).

Er, no they don’t actually.


You write, ‘I fail to see any difficulty here, except in the interpretation of Petrie's grammar... unless, of course, you have a corroborating measurement from another source? M&R, perhaps?’

I can do better than that.

The following is from Piazzi Smyth’s Life and Works at the Great Pyramid Vol. 2 Page 51. Edinburgh 1867:

First Ascending Passage, breadth and height of.
Breadth 41.6”
Height perpendicular to axis of passage 47.3”

Notes, February 13, and February 16, 1865
These measures are rather of the portcullis block, close-fitting into the original passage at this point: and showing what must have been.”

As you are well aware, Petrie confirms these measurements.
So, the fact remains that one or more of these granite blocks would not have fitted between the faces of the Grand Gallery’s ramps, nor could they have slid down the Ascending Passage.

On a personal note, I am surprised at your trying to alter the facts (i.e. re-write Petrie) to suit your theory.
Now, of course, you have Piazzi Smyth’s grammar to deal with, too.

MJ

p.s. It would suit my hypothesis admirably to have the blocks stored in the Gallery and later slid down the Passage



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2007 03:15PM by MJ Thomas.