Hi Robin,

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 -
[freeimage.host]
In response I was told that the blue level I added to the drawing signifying 154 cubits above base is incorrect, that M and R corrected an error by Petrie (their drawings look essentially the same to me), that the plan of the exit points contains errors, and that Gantenbrink confirmed that the shaft exits are at the same level. But I can find no trace of any such statements by Gantenbrink in print.

As I showed here [www.maatforum.com] M&R copied Petrie's data while introducing their own course numbering error and causing confusion.
Your conclusion that the Petrie's drawings and M&R's drawings 'looks essentialy the same' are correct, as well as the blue level of 154c.

Quote

Moving on, you asked about the shafts in plan. I'm not quite sure where I got those, they came from Gantenbrink. I separated them into three drawings

Thanks for the drawing.
As we know, the northern shaft deviates westward to bypass the Grand Gallery. It is quite expected that it then deviates to the east in order to reach the required exit point. I think the schemes of the southern shaft should be more useful to determine whether the shafts have their own azimuths or their outlets and entrances have the same horizontal offsets relative to the axis of the pyramid.

Quote

Looking at Fig.16 in your paper, with Dubhe and Mizar in the aq position, it is tempting to speculate on the position of Thuban.

Go on, it's interesting. It is possible that you find something that I have not noticed.

Quote

The few responses from authories to my shaft questions have so far been assertive but lacking in any kind of academic reference. Apparently my 'blue level' is incorrect due to confusion in course height estimates, as well as 'corrections' made by M and R to Petrie's figures. However it is asserted that 'Gantenbrink confirmed the 154 estimate of M and R' and that both shaft exits are on the same level.

Quite the opposite:
1) your blue level is correct;
2) M&R 'correction' to Petrie's figures is their mistake, and Petrie is correct;
3) Gantenbrink 'confirmed' the erroneous 154c estimate of M&R since it is just an inaccurate repetition of Petrie's data;
4) Both shafts have exits at the same elevation only in Gantenbrink theory, and this does not coincide with the data of a meticulous inspection of Petrie.

I want to suggest an easy way to check if Gantenbrink is right with his level of 154c or Petrie. Undoubtedly, the calculated data of both researchers on the elevations of the shaft outlets to the restored casing are based on data on the shaft outlets to the observed surface of the pyramid. Since the data on outlets to the observed surface do not coincide (the southern shaft exits higher than the northern one according to Petrie both in the elevation and in the course number, and on the contrary, the northern shaft is higher than the southern one in both parameters according to Gantenbrink), it is possible to check the correctness of both examinations comparing them with the data of the photogrammetric survey of the Khufu pyramid by the Iconem company in 2018. Franck Monnier has the data we need at his disposal and I tried to contact him with a question about specifying the course numbers on which the shaft outlets are located. Unfortunately, I did not receive a response within 4 days, although Franck always answered quickly. Maybe someone else want to ask about this information and be more fortunate?

When we receive this data, it will be possible to confidently conclude whose calculated data (outlets to the restored casing) is incorrect because it is based on incorrect observational data (outlets to the observed surface).

I predict that Gantenbrink mistakenly swapped the shafts and made a mistake in the numbering of courses, and his theoretical value 154c is completely geometric and has no relation to reality, since, unlike Petrie, he does not give the values of the horizontal distances from the shaft outlets to the pyramid's axis (these values are needed to calculate the original casing).

Quote

Gantenbrink's web site indeed shows him climbing and studying the shaft exits so perhaps he made his own survey? However one continues to wonder how Petrie could present a diagram explicitly showing different exit heights, but which Gantenbrink says are at the same level. If such assertions are true where is the evidence to back them up?

Gantenbrink could of course measure something outside the pyramid, but I don't see any detailed information about this. How did he measure the elevation of the courses? How did he calculate the original casing, if there is no data on the horizontal distances from the outlets to the axis?

Alex.

[ed. Hermione - URL formatting]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2022 02:38AM by Hermione.