I managed to find another image hosting site. Here is the plan of the passages -



In your previous post you stated - " The Project Djedi team released the results on their website at emhotep dot net back in 2011. They also released a paper in a journal whose name I can't remember at the moment". So I spent a few hours on the net. Hawass' site popped up, where he lays out all the discoveries he claims to have made over the years, including the QC shafts. But since he writes that he considers the shafts were bored through the masonry (!)...say no more.

Moving on to the Emhotep site they give 39.6 degrees for QC south but 36.7 (?) for QC north. They state a length of 63.6 m (~ 121 cubits) from the start of the shaft (presumably just the angled portion) to the blocking stone - this would make it probable that the hieratic glyphs read 121.

The only report I could find, authored by the whole Djedi team, is this - [www.arjunnagendran.com]
- measurements are vague - shaft begins with a 'short horizontal section around 2 metres long' ; both shafts are 'approximately 40 degrees from the horizontal'. (But, hey, robots!). Pretty useless for our purposes.

So we come back to Gantenbrink, who gives this information -
KC south horizontally 1.72m. Shaft short sections 39.20* and 50.54*. Then 45*. He remarks - "despite the extreme fluctuations in the initial section, the shaft seem to proceed with great exactitude and constancy".
KC north horizontally 2.63m. Shaft 32.60*.
QC south horizontally 1.96m. Shaft average 39.6078*
QC north horizontally 1.93m. Based on 14 measurements made over a distance of 17 meters, the shaft's angle of ascent fluctuates between 33.3° and 40.1°.
The horizontal lengths all being different suggest that the virtual 'focal points' of the shafts must lie below the chambers and Gantenbrink gives his reasoning for the origin of the KC shafts 22 south of KC centre. But where does he record "that the final 16% of this shaft is set at a consistent angle that is slightly flatter than the 7:11 slope"?

I dragged up a drawing I made many years ago based on Gantenbrink to ease the present discussion -



- KC south implies a square of 198 cubits, hence 44 below pyramid base - in turn the origin for QC south coinciding with the line of KC south on the height of the pyramid. This is very similar to Legon's analysis. (In my original 1993 scheme the focus point was 300 instead of 297 south of centre. mea culpa). Also shown is a suggestion I made for the line of the upper passages, now superseded).The yellow triangle has slope of 121 and height 77.

Your scheme is indicated by blue lines. Now Gantenbrink, in the 1997 paper he presents on his website, stresses the importance of finding common reference points in the design of Khufu, saying that "The ceiling height of the QC passage constitutes a common quantity at the lower end of the Great Gallery" (with the ceiling height of QC north shaft exit), so the floor joint you mention to obtain your 110 vertical dimension may not be so important (although I would not be so strict - floors, ceilings, and centre axes should all be considered). On the other hand is Gantenbrink so meticulous as he presents himself - he states that Descending and passages have the same slope, which is not a fact. And how come he and Legon, both of whom are familiar with Petrie's figures, nevertheless promote the 154 KC shaft exit height?

If the start of KC south is at 77 vertical and 22 horizontal from centre; meets the horizontal shaft part 8 cubits from KC centre; is stated to be 45 degrees; and its presumed target (the belt) is also 45 degrees, it must hit the casing at 154 vertically. So an adjustment to 152/153 can have nothing to do with stars. And where does KC north bend? The putative adjustment (blue line) seems pretty large to me. As to Dashur some interesting possibilities, but as Hamilton has said the survey data is a complete mess (and I'm an adherent of the 362 Bent base school and wouldn't want to clog up this thread going on about Dashur again). Maybe they should let the Russians come and measure the pyramids, they are usually pretty efficient ;+)

I don't have an astronomy program at the moment but if anyone does (and has not yet become petrified by all this 'number crunching'), what are the altitudes of the suggested target stars in 2560 BC?