Petrie went to Giza to check assertions about Khufu geometry and measures (without by the way spending an inordinate amount of time speculating about what the Egyptians might or might not have been able to do). Lehner must similarly be aware that today a number of theories are going the rounds suggesting that the site was laid out to an overall plan. Does the fact that he apparently does not highlight the figures for dimensions and positions of pyramid bases (the only figures of any real interest, unless one wants to make a model of all the rocks and sand) suggest that he finds such a proposition so unlikely as to be hardly worth mentioning? Or is it perhaps the case that there has not been a resurvey of all three pyramids? That Lehner was writing a scholarly report, is perhaps mildly interested in the notion, but is content to await the final survey, whenever that will be?

Overall layout proponents are regularly mocked on this forum. Things would be a little fairer if they had reliable figures to work from. And do these layout theories really harm anyone, beyond taking up forum space? This intercourse might yet prove fruitful, if not to prove an overall plan then perhaps to turn up some information of interest to others. (Although it must be agreed that sometimes the clarity with which a suggestion is presented sometimes leaves much to be desired).

poundr17