Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 13, 2024, 8:57 am UTC    
January 30, 2008 08:50PM
Jon:

I realize that you are not criticizing Petrie's work...as you stated, but there was only so much the man could do under the circumstances.
Actually, although Petrie claims no evidence of mathematical relationships within the Giza pyramids I believe he though otherwise. It would have been foolish for him to publish his mathematical findings, best to stay with the measures only. But he did ensured that the world knew the base of the King's chamber was located at a level equal to the half-base area of the structure. Also that an equal amount of casing and "assumed" backing stone was missing from the base to apex of G1. He was cunningly smart like a fox and politically astute.

Your own drawing of the QC looks pretty. The drawing is not scaled and you have no measures to support your work and it is of no use to those who are attempting to fathom why these strange discrepancies/cuttings in stone formation.
You may not understand, but there are some who work with stone that realize an "odd" shaped stone is not accidental...there is a reason for it being there. As with your example, it is clear that the stone above the niche is a lintel; it prevents the niche from moving.
If you view the upper-most layer of stone in the KC you will notice the short sides utilize a single stone only, while the lower courses are comprised of narrow stones. There's an engineering explanation for this method of construction... it's called prevention of collapse.
Petrie is not here to explain his reasoning for omitting some details, but I believe overlooking obvious structural designs does not require one, and that is where researchers must use logic before leaping into a new theory.

You have also presented your own data re: the pinpoint location of the three pyramids...sorry, but you must use latitude longitude. Deviations above/below the horizontal plane do not fit into survey formulas. Those can always be added later if required/necessary. What would your calculations be if taken from the foot of the Sphinx?

BTW...the elevation between the three is extremely important...it has not been overlooked...I guarantee it.

Best.
Clive
Subject Author Posted

The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Jon_B January 28, 2008 02:24PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Hermione January 28, 2008 02:53PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

cladking January 28, 2008 04:39PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Byrd January 28, 2008 06:26PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

cladking January 28, 2008 06:59PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

fmetrol January 28, 2008 08:26PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Byrd January 29, 2008 09:56AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Pistol January 28, 2008 04:40PM

A usual suspect.

Morph January 28, 2008 09:57PM

Re: A usual suspect.

Pistol January 29, 2008 01:24AM

Re: A usual suspect.

Morph January 29, 2008 08:32AM

Re: As usual, suspect.

Pistol January 29, 2008 10:58AM

Re: As usual, suspect.

Morph January 29, 2008 12:33PM

Re: A usual suspect.

Warwick L Nixon January 29, 2008 01:23PM

Re: A usual suspect.

Dave L January 29, 2008 01:38PM

Re: A usual suspect.

Warwick L Nixon January 29, 2008 01:52PM

Re: A usual suspect.

fmetrol January 29, 2008 02:41PM

Re: A usual suspect.

Dave L January 29, 2008 03:03PM

Re: A usual suspect.

fmetrol January 29, 2008 03:29PM

Re: A usual suspect.

Hermione January 29, 2008 03:55PM

Re: A usual suspect.

fmetrol January 29, 2008 04:12PM

Re: A usual suspect.

Dave L January 29, 2008 04:12PM

Re: A usual suspect.

fmetrol January 29, 2008 04:20PM

Re: A usual suspect.

Dave L January 29, 2008 04:42PM

Re: A usual suspect.

fmetrol January 30, 2008 11:47AM

Re: A usual suspect.

Dave L January 30, 2008 11:53AM

Re: A usual suspect.

Morph January 29, 2008 06:39PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 29, 2008 01:17PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Warwick L Nixon January 29, 2008 01:25PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 29, 2008 01:38PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Hermione January 29, 2008 01:53PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 29, 2008 03:00PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Warwick L Nixon January 29, 2008 01:54PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 29, 2008 04:07PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Warwick L Nixon January 29, 2008 04:09PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Jon_B January 29, 2008 01:57PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 29, 2008 03:03PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Clive January 29, 2008 10:38PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Jon_B January 30, 2008 02:27AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Doug Weller January 30, 2008 04:16AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Hermione January 30, 2008 05:20AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Tommi Huhtamaki January 30, 2008 08:07AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

IanM January 30, 2008 07:04PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 30, 2008 08:45AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Clive January 30, 2008 08:50PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 31, 2008 08:06AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Hermione January 31, 2008 08:34AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 31, 2008 09:45AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

C Wayne Taylor January 31, 2008 09:55AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Clive January 31, 2008 10:23PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Hermione February 01, 2008 04:00AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

C Wayne Taylor February 01, 2008 06:34AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Byrd January 31, 2008 10:36AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 31, 2008 11:17AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

fmetrol January 31, 2008 12:47PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 31, 2008 02:34PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Clive January 31, 2008 10:32PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Byrd February 01, 2008 12:00PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Jon_B January 31, 2008 04:11PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Clive January 31, 2008 10:28PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Hermione February 01, 2008 04:06AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 30, 2008 06:34AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Pistol January 30, 2008 06:14PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Hermione January 30, 2008 06:26PM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 31, 2008 04:10AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Hermione January 31, 2008 04:28AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Dave L January 31, 2008 09:45AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Hermione January 31, 2008 10:15AM

Re: The bits that Petrie left out (a lengthy polemic)

Pistol January 31, 2008 11:19AM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login