Hi Alex,

Oh, you mean the author who wrote the PDF - I thought you meant Gantenbrink. If you look more closely at the PDF author's website -
[www.gizapyramids.com]
- you may understand why i am not impressed with the author's ideas in general. On the other hand one should not discard an idea simply because it comes from a shaky source.

If Brabin is right, the contention that the entire upper passage system is dislocated from external pyramid measurements - that Khufu survey data appearing on thousands of websites is wrong - is something of a bombshell, especially since Khufu is held aloft as a model of precision and consequently the object of extraordinary study.

But can we really believe that Smith bungled measurements around the plug blocks, and whose figures were accepted by the otherwise meticulous Petrie? Moreover the author more or less admits that the required adjustments still don't coincide with Gantenbrink's scheme.

The real question is why not a word has been said about the conflict between Petrie's and Gantenbrink's measures. Petrie's estimate is shown here -
[www.ronaldbirdsall.com]

And here is Gantenbrink's page discussing the shaft geometry -
[www.cheops.org]

He comments - "I discovered that of the 14 Maragiolio and Rinaldi measurements I required for my computer analysis, 12 were imprecise or simply false – on what was supposedly the "best surveyed monument" in history." But he says nothing about Petrie's measure's. He also comments - "Both corridors [descending and ascending passages] have exactly the same angle, so that what applies to the ascending one must also apply to the descending one". Which is factually incorrect.

In spite of these uncertainties, the data we do have seems to confirm that the angles of the southern shafts fit the southern culminations of Orion's belt and Sirius around 2560 BC. But this correlation is lost at an earlier dating and a key link between shafts and stellar mythology is severed. This will not worry the surprisingly large number of scholars (including Gantenbrink) who promote a purely geometric interpretation. Yet we see repeated representations of the stellar mythology in tombs, coffin lids, and many references throughout the Pyramid Texts - in which Sirius and Orion are prominent. To find that these very same stars are targeted by the southern shafts, even if imperfectly, is a powerful fact.

In meridian section the two southern shafts are 'balanced' by two northern shafts. One of these targets the pole, the destiny of the king, the other Kochab, whose meaning in the stellar mythology is completely unknown. It is however a fairly prominent star in Ursa Minor, one of the two adzes revolving around the pole. But in 2560 BC the Kochab- Mizar connection is lost. And alignments to stars of Meskhetiu are missing - they only play their part in 'simultaneous transit' situations. Then there are the clear precessional effects in pyramid orientations which point to the following of a particular star target, but which one?

If it turns out that Gantenbrink's measures are correct then the case for geometrical planning of the shafts is greatly increased and, if conventional dating is used, at the same time allows an astronomical interpretation. This could have been the whole point of the exercise - linking earth and sky. When Khufu was being designed an opportune coincidence was seized upon and imbued with mythic significance. Well, one can dream ;-)

Robin