fmetrol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is yet another approximation, albeit a
> slightly better one than Clive put up.
>
> If you did use Petrie then you will know that one
> arm is about 5 inches shorter than the other and
> if you convert the same to royal cubits you don't
> get 790.3 = 790.3 but 790.4 and 790.6
> respectively.
>
> Still a very good coincidence but then we have to
> ask ... what significance.
>
> A small drawing like this gives one the impression
> that everything is half bases but you know this is
> not the case so you have to ask yourself what on
> earth were the AE's up to.
>
> Have you got the answer?
>
> Can you work back and discover their method?
>
> What is the significance of two more or less equal
> arms?
>
> Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Have you explored
> that possibility?

Or could there be some significance after all to Butler's case for a site 'reflection'?.

poundr17