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

>
> Hello Anthony,
>
> Neither Smyth nor Petrie measured the Passage
> width at the three "girdle stones".
> Smyth took two measurements in the "girdled
> section" and recorded 55" and 60".



Doesn't this sentence negate itself? "Smyth didnt measure" and then "Smyth measured"? Is there a typo here? Or am I just misunderstanding what you mean?

And clearly 55" and 60" are way out of the ballpark.



>
> This considerable difference to the 41.6" at the
> uppermost block and 42.2" at the upper end of the
> Passage is, apparently, the result of extreme
> exfoliation.


I can't even imagine that being the case. What would the diagonal measure be of these passages?



> It is clear that the three "girdle stones"
> suffered the same fate as most of the rest of the
> Passage.


Are they all that close to the plugs? I'm looking at Petrie's diagram online (I'm not in my library at the moment) and it seems these girdles are spaced up through the body of the passage, and not all congregated at the bottom. They could not possibly be that damaged.


>
> The doorway at the top of the Ascending Passage
> is, IMO, the most reliable measurement.
> I refer you to my sequel thread in which I deal
> with this.


I disagree. The doorway could still have shifted. The interior of a stone block, however, would not fluctuate in the least as a result of seismic activity. I think they will be the best indicators of intended dimension.

Anthony

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