MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

> 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”



Once again, you are using WHOSE measurement of the blocks?

Petrie actually indicates they are more like 38 inches wide, but the PASSAGE is 41.6.

This is what happens when you use second-hand data for your theorizing. If you wish to prove this, you may have to travel to Giza yourself and measure the blocks.



> This means that the granite plugs could not have
> been stored on any floor between these ramp
> faces.




No, it doesn't mean that. It means Petrie's measurements have been misread.



>
>
> 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 have new data, but the evidence itself is not new. Also, you are in all likelihood misreading part of the data. With that potential misread, you have a serious problem with your contentions.



>

> 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.


No. I think that is a misinterpretation. The block is still 38.2 inches wide. The passage is 41.6 inches wide.




> 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”.


The passage narrows. The blocks probably do not. I thought I made this quite clear.



> 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.


There is no need to wedge anything but the bottom block in place. They may be slightly wider, but in actuality they would have wanted them to be able to fall on intruders, I'll bet. They couldn't do this if every block stayed exactly where it ended up and so robbers could just tunnel up through them at their leisure.



>
> 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”.


Exactly.


> 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 are assuming that, based on Petrie's fuzzy grammar. I am not satisfied with that assumption.



> 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.


No, MJT. I base my conclusion on the evidence of how the Old Kingdom Egyptians sealed their tombs. You are basing your speculation on occult mathematics and geometric daydreams. That would be the primary difference between our two works.



>
>
> 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.


Smyth got a whole lot wrong. I wouldn't trust his measurements unless they were verified by somebody else... and then what's the point?



>
>
> 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 just keep arguing that without further evidence. We'll see who's right.




>
>
> 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.



Really? Better than M&R????



> The following is from Piazzi Smyth’s


ROTFLMAO! Smyth is better than M&R????? You might as well be quoting de Lubicz as being better than Weeks!


> 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.



Yes... those are measurements OF THE PASSAGE!!!!! Not the plug stones, which is what we're talking about here.



> 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.


You are still wrong for the reasons clearly cited above. I have put out the call to people with more data at their disposal. Why are you still digging through outdated, debunked Smyth for evidence?

Afraid of the real answer?

>
> On a personal note, I am surprised at your trying
> to alter the facts (i.e. re-write Petrie) to suit
> your theory.


How dare you. There's clearly a problem with what was written, and it isn't the first time Petrie made mistakes. Look at all the errors in his measurements of the courses!



> Now, of course, you have Piazzi Smyth’s grammar to
> deal with, too.


Worthless trash. He was off more than he was on with his measurements.




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


I don't care. Really.

Anthony

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