Hello Clive,

I wrote, ‘My current thinking is, very broadly: ..."

You reply, ‘Your thinking is also...without/lacking evidence to support the simple fact of “any” individual ever buried within this structure.’

This thread concerns the question of why Khufu didn’t build his pyramid on the higher ground at Giza – a question which naturally calls into play the question of whether or not there is a pan- or trans-generational geometry based plan at Giza.
Whether or not Khufu’s mortal remains were interred in the Great Pyramid is here immaterial.


I wrote, ‘...Khufu chose the rock outcrop at Giza (for whatever reason)..."

You reply, ‘a) I notice..."for whatever reason"...a typical statement constantly used by "off-the-wall" theorists.’

I wrote “(for whatever reason)” simply to avoid getting into discussions here about why Khufu chose the rock outcrop as the site for his pyramid.
For example, I think the Grotto was part of the reason whereas Anthony favours the ‘Primeval Mound’ idea.
BTW, I haven’t the imagination to be an “off-the-wall” theorist


I wrote, ‘Yours: "... as the ideal site for his pyramid – no geometry was involved in this sitting other than in the laying out of its square base..."

You reply, ‘b) You have next to "zero" knowledge regarding foundation preparation and that gives you little, if any right, to make the above assumption.’

Sorry, Clive, I don’t follow you.
The base of Khufu’s pyramid is a near perfect square that is aligned very, very close to North.
This could have been and therefore probably was achieved through the use of basic geometry.
The phenomenally accurate levelling of the sides at the base could have been achieved by the use of water-filled channels – whether this is how it was actually done is a matter of opinion.
Given the AEs skills at irrigation I’d say it is most likely.


You write, ‘Note:
For an individual who claims to have studied this site for so many years, as you do, all I can say is...you must be attempting to rattle cages for Xmas, just for the fun of it...!’

I think this is a little uncalled for, Clive.
I cannot see in anything I have so far posted to this thread any comment or statement that can be construed as an attempt by me to ‘rattle cages’.
Perhaps you would care to explain to me privately what makes you think I am trying to upset people here – my e-mail address is rally.hcs@btinternet
For what it’s worth, Clive, my interest in the planning of Khufu’s pyramid began in the summer of ’76, I started my hypothesis on it in January ’79, and have been working on it on-and-off (Life keeps getting in the way) since.


You write, ‘A challenge:
If I present mathematical “proof” that the lower chamber was designed to be excavated at its "exact" present location and support the work with other evidence...will you then drop the concept of Petrie's measure of the Kc being the standard for the Royal cubit? Because if you don't then you have shot a hole in your own foot...!

Hmmm, I’m not sure how to respond to this.
Okay, let me try it this way.
Believe it or not I, too, can demonstrate (through arithmetic and linear geometry) that the Subterranean Chamber and its passages are exactly where the architect wanted them to be – I can even tell you what the intended dimensions were (all as a hypothesis, of course)
But why on earth should I “drop the concept of Petrie's measure of the Kc being the standard for the Royal cubit?”
My hypothesis on how the entirety of Khufu’s pyramid was planned works best with a royal cubit @ 20.632”.
What else can I say?


You write, ‘BTW…just for the record…Bauval’s OCT is dead…period…! ‘

I’m not so sure… I think I can detect a faint pulse…

Regards,

MJ