robin cook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There should be no need to mount an expedition.
> Petrie surveyed Giza and published his results,
> which have been accepted by the Egyptological
> community. Gantenbrink said that he made his own
> survey of the pyramid which placed his shaft exit
> points at a higher level, but as far as I know he
> has not published his survey results in any
> academic form. Until this data aberration is
> resolved further speculation on shaft geometry is
> useless.

Stephen Brabin at gizapyramids.com made the same assumption. (See pdf titled "Surveying errors within the Great Pyramid of Giza.")

www.giza-pyramids.com/documents/pdf/Surveying_error.pdf

Brabin's reconstructed diagram has two distinct lines of shafts for both KCS and KCN, which he calls "Petrie's surveyed shaft" and "Gantenbrink's surveyed shaft" -- but Gantenbrink only measured the slopes of the shafts near the exit points. He did not survey the elevations of these points. The so-called "Gantenbrink's surveyed shafts" were reconstructions based on his theoretical model for the shafts based on whole palm sekeds.

As far as I am concerned Petrie's measurements of the elevations (done in inches) still stand. All that is left is to convert the values to cubits and palms. We can use the tops of courses 101 and 104 as reference elevations as these are in whole cubits. I use the cubit of 20.62". The top of course 101 is 150 cubits, and the top of course 104 is 154 cubits. Look at Petrie's diagrams. KCS exits at top of course 103 and KCN exits at top of course 102. Both fall short of the 154c levels for differing reasons.