Hello Anthony,

Thank you for your two interesting and enlightening responses to my last post.

Because the second of your responses (concerning M&R) corrects many of the errors you made in the first, there is no need for me to here go through it all point-by-point.
However, there remains a few comments you made that I should like to address.


You write, ‘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.’

As I have posted before on this Forum, and only recently, I do not, repeat not, base any of my GP speculations and hypotheses on “occult mathematics and geometric daydreams” – unless, that is, one sees the arithmetic and geometry in the Rhind and Moscow papyri as “occult mathematics and geometric daydreams”.


Regarding C. Piazzi Smyth, you write:

‘Smyth got a whole lot wrong. I wouldn't trust his measurements unless they were verified by somebody else...

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

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

‘Why are you still digging through outdated, debunked Smyth for evidence?’

These disparaging comments of yours suggest to me that you have not carried out a direct comparison between Smyth and Petrie.
Had you done so you would know that more often than not Smyth and Petrie are in close accord (circa. +/- 0.1”).
The disparity comes in mostly with measurements taken over long distances (e.g. sloping passage lengths, lengths of the sides).
Broadly, the main cause of the different results was Smyth using measuring-rods (often inefficiently plumbed end-over-end) and Petrie using more reliable measuring-chains (though Petrie did have to resort to measuring-rods plumbed end-over-end for the lower reaches of the Descending Passage).

If you were to read up on the subject (I’m presuming you haven’t) you would find that Petrie had considerable respect for Smyth and his work (though not for Smyth's theories); as witnessed, for example, by the number of times in The Pyramids and Temples of Giza Petrie defers to him.

There is a strong tendency in some to dismiss data on the pyramids solely because the measurer was a so-called Pyramidologist.
Over the years I have read a host of Pyramidology books, and you can take it from me that the data they contain is for the most part accurate (using Petrie as the standard reference).
However, I prefer to use Petrie as my main reference, and Smyth, Rutherford et al for areas of the Pyramid that Petrie did not measure (usually because of debris being in the way) or was unsure about (the length of the Descending Passage, for example).

BTW, Anthony, I did not say or imply that Smyth was “better than M&R”.
Smyth measured the top end of the granite plugs in 1865, Petrie measured it in 1886, and agreed with Smyth’s results, and M&R measured them in the 1960s.
As you are aware, or so I presume, since the start of mass tourism to the Pyramids in the 1800s a lot of vandalism has been inflicted on various parts of the Pyramid by souvenir hunters.
It is partly because of this that I refer to Smyth and Petrie for the dimensions of the granite blocks.
When these blocks were measured by M&R it is possible (though IMO unlikely) that they were not in the same condition as they were 95+ and 74+ years earlier.
As for M&R, I have yet to see a copy of their work, but I am given to understand by various folks that some of it is inaccurate.


You write, ‘I've now got a copy of M&R, and on this topic they are quite clear.
Quote:
The plug-blocks for (A) could not have been stored but in the great gallery. In fact they are 1.195 m. high and 1.05 m. wide; corridor (H) is 1.17 x 1.05 m. in section and the passage (L) leading to the crypt is only 1.11 m. high. Thus the blocks were not put either in the queen's chamber or the crypt or in the corridor (H). Even if there had been only the three plug-blocks existing today, they could not have been kept in the part of the corridor (H) open to the great gallery due to their total length (they could not have been placed upon one another) and the fact that they would have almost completely blocked the upper opening of (A). The only place where the plug-blocks could have been kept was on the great gallery floor between the benches and beyond the open part of the corridor (emphasis added). p. 120’

Thank you for posting this additional supportive evidence that (and all much as I have been arguing since last weekend!):
a) Smyth’s and Petrie’s findings are correct
b) the blocks could not have been stored in the “queen's chamber or the crypt or in the corridor”, etc.
c) “the only place where the plug-blocks could have been kept was on the great gallery floor between the benches and beyond the open part of the corridor”


You write, ‘So, given this clear dimensional reference of the widest point of a plug-block (41.338583 inches) we then have to decide what exactly the shape of the entire shaft is, how it might have been affected by the shape of the blocks, and then perhaps run a test with similar blocks to see if it actually would have worked or not.’

This strikes me as the most sensible way to resolve this issue.
However, I, for one, would not be at all surprised if the experiment proved beyond doubt that these infuriating blocks were indeed built in situ.


You continue, ‘Or, we can just accept the blatantly obvious fact that the pyramid of Khufu was his tomb, the blocks, just like any other plug-stone blocks in other tombs, slid down from above to seal the passageway, and be done with it until real contradictory data comes along.’

Indeed we could, but I’m not going to.

You write, ‘Call me whatever names you like.’

Anthony, I have no desire to do any such thing.

MJ