Hi Kanga

You wrote in your previous post - "There is a clear whole palm thickness to courses 102 (9p), 103 (10p) and 104 (9p). As I have already stated, the top of course 101 has elevation 150 cubits. This is the third in the series of elevations that are multiples of 50 cubits. The top of course 36 is 50 cubits, the top of course 64 is 100 cubits and the top of course 101 is 150 cubits. The accumulated thickness of courses 102, 103 and 104 is 4 cubits. This makes the top of course 104 have elevation 154 cubits, which is significant in Gantenbrink's model."

Very interesting. But it is the shaft exit levels which are of particular importance here - the horns of the dilemma. Some here accept that the passages of the pyramid were carefully laid out so why not the shafts also? But Petrie's exit levels make little geometric sense, and one must resort to other explanations of the bends and angles of the shafts. Of course one could remain in denial of the geometry of the pyramid and ascribe everything to error and chance.

You propose that Gantenbrink conceived an 'ideal model' of the pyramid and that the true exits are 'adjustments' the architect made to this model. But why? I can only think of an astronomical explanation.

> As I understand it, Gantenbrink's original
> discoveries were published, in German, in MDAIK
> along with Stadelmann's article, but neither of
> these are published on the web as far as I can
> tell. Gantenbrink published his discoveries in
> English on the web at cheops.org in 1999, I
> believe, but he has completely removed his
> diagrams and articles on the shafts from the new
> site. The original articles have to be accessed
> through the Wayback Machine.
>
> I have an English translation of an article by
> Gantenbrink from a 1997 New Age magazine (Quest
> for Knowledge). The original article on which it
> is based may be Gantenbrink's original MDAIK
> article, but I need a copy of the MDAIK article to
> compare it with.

Good luck. Robin.