robin cook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> - the architects worked to a 'hidden agenda'

"Hidden" to us, that is. Though I would think it was also intended to be "hidden" to those who had not been initiated into such things - if only to try to ensure that the inner chambers would be more difficult to locate by the inevitable grave robbers. This meant that there would be no overall "map" of the entire layout, and that the basis for placement choices would be devilishly difficult to be figured out unless one knew the key - and even then it could be difficult.

> But all this concerns Khufu. Other pyramids appear
> not to have been designed to the same standard nor
> are their interior arrangements understood (partly
> because of the appalling lack of survey data -

Other Old Kingdom pyramids may not have been built to the same high standard as were parts of Khufu, but I believe the Red, Bent, and Khafre were all DESIGNED to the same standard - and with the same goals and the same basic modality as the Khufu.


> If, as some suggest, a pyramid was a machine to send dead
> kings to the stars, then why such variation in
> design? The architects had no way of confirming if
> a particular design 'worked best'. So there must
> have been other imperatives in pyramid design.

One reason for the variation seen in these structures is as stated above. Other reasons seem to have been based on a desire to incorporate certain (so-called) Pythagorean Triples, and certain numerical ratios - as you suggest. I maintain that underlying all of these, however, was the squaring of the circle objective. This is the rationale, the glue - if you will, that holds all the rest of the interior placements together - and into which all the rest of the specifics of the interior placements were adjusted to fit.

It would appear that an early group of tomb robbers did, in fact, have inside knowledge of the planning for the Khafre pyramid. They dug their way through the structure directly to the point where an unbuilt, but design-allowable, second upper descending passage would have met with what Maragioglio and Rinaldi label as "Corridor X". See M&R's Tav. 7 fig. 3 and Tav. 9 fig. 1 to see the location I am speaking of. This "Corridor X" passage was a part of the original plans, and was indeed built - but then was mysteriously filled in by the builders. The other upper descending passage that was apparently in the original plans can be seen in my Fig. 11 (line FQO), while "Corridor X" can be seen in my Fig. 12. [www.atara.net]

When the decision was made to not use this upper passage of the diagram but instead use the next option just below it (line DPO in Fig. 11), the placement of "Corridor X" evidently became obsolete and was replaced by the placement of what M&R call "Corridor A".

My point is that these tunnelers seem to have known exactly where to find Corridor X (see [storiesmymummytoldme.files.wordpress.com] ) implying that they had some form of inside knowledge of the plans - or at least knowledge of an earlier version of the final plans. I believe it is worth noting that the point where their tunnel turns downward and intersects with the horizontal passage (M&R's "Corridor O") is precisely the point where the diagram's second upper descending passage (line FQO in my Fig 11) intersects with this horizontal passage. I believe that M&R's treatment of the Khafre pyramid is unfortunately unavailable online. Perhaps someone here knows where it can be found?






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2018 08:56AM by L Cooper.