Hi Robin,
Quote
Regarding the 45 degree
Thanks for the information. I need to analyze some points.
According to the drawing of the Khufu pyramid, I already have a remark that requires the creation of a drawing, so I will publish it a little later.
Quote
I came across the Kochab/Alnitak correlation in 1994 using Skyglobe
I always thought it was Bauval's find. You have found an important correlation, without which the choice of Kochab cannot be convincingly explained.
Quote
When Alnitak culminates in the south at the conventional date, it is vertically below Betelgeuse or in simultaneous transit, but perhaps this is another coincidence?
Interesting coincidence.
Quote
By the way, KC north shaft, in plan, is fairly straight but is aimed a few degrees to the east. This does not appear to be sloppy work but intentional - should this not be taken into account when investigating the target of the shaft?
Of course, this must be taken into account. On what plans is this visible? Are there any exact values?
Quote
Meanwhile I continue my quest for hard data on the shafts. One scholar sent me right back to Brabin and said he 'thought' Gantenbrink is correct. Luca Miatello also forwarded a paper by one Jeremy Potter (GM.183 (2001) p. 87. linked as attachment). Potter's own site is here
Potter's document is very large. It will take a long time if I can handle it at all.
Quote
I sent the illustration below comparing Petrie's and M and R's Khufu shaft layout to Miatello , which to me seemed to me to be essentially the same
I have compiled the data by Petrie (The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh), M&R (L'Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite 4) and Gantenbrink (cheops.org) into a table for clarity:
Let's analyze this data and try to find the reasons for the discrepancies.
Petrie and M&R
As can be seen, there are two main points here:
a) M&R suggest that Petrie made a mistake in determining the elevation of the courses by ~0.65m;
b) the data of both surveys regarding the elevation of the northern shaft outlet to the restored casing unexpectedly completely coincide. At the same time, M&R provides conflicting data on the course number (102th in the figure and 103th in the text). Obviously, M&R are not meticulous enough on this point and therefore it can be assumed that they were the ones who were mistaken, having copied Petrie's data, which do not correspond to the other three elevations in their report.
The question of the correct elevations of the courses cannot be convincingly resolved on the basis of these two surveys.
Gantenbrink
Gantenbrink's data do not match those of the other two surveys except for two elevations (in green), but these data belong to different shafts and two different parts of the survey: one is the measured data, the other is the calculated data. In my opinion, we can say that Gantenbrink's examination is totally inconsistent with the other two. Let's try to figure out what is the reason for such discrepancies.
In the other two surveys, the outlet of the northern shaft to the observed surface is lower than for the southern one; in Gantenbrink's survey the opposite is true. If you look closely, Gantenbrink's data still matches Petrie's data, but most likely they are mixed up in places:
After the rearrangement, the difference in elevations between Petrie's data and Gantenblink's data is reduced to 0.1 - 0.4m (from 0.5 to 1m initially)
It is also can be seen that Gantenbrink's course numbers after the rearrangement are greater by one in both cases than the course numbers in the other two surveys.
As for the data regarding the elevations of the outlets to the restored casing, Gantenbrink's data are so different from others that it is most likely his data distorted in favor of the geometric model of the pyramid proposed by him.
All that I wrote is just my assumptions. I would be glad if someone else analyzes this data and identifies any patterns.
Alex.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2020 10:36AM by keeperzz.