MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, I can see and accept the need for an element
> of caution when looking at a culture separated
> from ours in time and in space.
> However, one can take it too far.
No, one can't. Really. It's called integrity, and it can't be overdone.
> We don’t actually know whether or not the Pyramid
> builders layed out a perfectly orientated 440
> royal cubits x 440 royal cubits square and then
> moved the corners according to some as yet
> unidentified pattern.
> But I think it is foolish to ignore the issue
> simply because there is no known relevant
> contemporary text telling us what they did or did
> not do.
No contemporary text of which you are aware, that is.
>
> Many of us look at the results of Cole’s 1925
> survey and say: well, if the builders’ of Khufu’s
> intended the base to be a perfectly aligned 440
> royal cubits by 440 royal cubits square, then they
> did an astonishingly good job of it.
Yes, they did.
>
> But is what we see in the layout of this Pyramid’s
> base showing us the full extent of its surveyors’
> skills.
Since it is the most accurate demonstration of their skill, it would be illogical to assume that they could do better, but never displayed it at all anywhere in their structural record.
See the problem?
> But I haven’t opted for the
> ‘let’s-move-the-perfectly-aligned
> square-around-until-a-pattern-emerges’ approach.
Good. It's a non sequitur.
> Cole (and probably others since) opined that the
> small groove cut into the pavement near the
> mid-length of the north side probably marks the
> Pyramid’s intended north-south axis.
> I’m inclined to agree with him.
No skin off my nose.
> So I have superimposed my perfectly aligned square
> over Cole’s not-quite-perfect square, with the
> mid-length of my square’s north side over the
> actual north side’s axis marker.
> As I said in my previous post to you, a pattern
> emerges.
The human mind has a capacity to recognize patterns... even when they were not intentionally created.
Bunnies in clouds, anyone?
>
> Of course this pattern could be purely
> coincidental and mean nothing at all.
> On the other hand…
That must be the logical conclusion when one lacks evidence of intent.
>
> Instead of exercising your rule to avoid doing
> things unless you know the Dynasty IV Egyptians
> also did it that way, why not have a crack at this
> little exercise and see what you make of it?
You demonstrate to me that they could align something more closely to the cardinal directions than Khufu's pyramid, and I'll be happy to.
> Surely, this is better than simply dismissing
> out-of-hand – as you appear to be doing here – the
> possibility* that what we see in the layout of the
> base of Khufu’s pyramid is evidence (but by no
> means proof) that the AEs of the 4th Dyn. were
> more skilled at surveying than we have so far
> given them credit for.
>
Serious researchers don't have time to look at every coincidence that somebody with a CAD program can dream up.
> Does it matter whether what we see in the layout
> of the base of Khufu’s pyramid is intentional or
> not?
>
> I think it does.
I agree. I think they intended it to be a square.
What do I win?
> I have been following Don’s drawings (as best I
> can; some are lost on me, I’m afraid) and it
> occurs to me that a question that needs addressing
> here is not: “did the AEs set out the pyramids and
> temples of Giza according to a vast, skillfully
> surveyed plan”, but: “could the 4th Dyn. AEs set
> out the pyramids and temples of Giza according to
> a vast, skillfully surveyed plan had they wanted
> to?”
Neither is correct. The FIRST question is: WOULD the 4th Dyn. AEs set out the pyramids and temples of Giza according to a vast, skillfully surveyed plan had they wanted to?"
And the answer is culturally.. "no way". It directly contradicts the known purpose of the pyramids, as told to us by the pyramid builders themselves.
>
> IMO, the layout of the base of Khufu’s pyramid
> suggests, repeat suggests, to me that yes they
> could have; which, IMO, then brings us to the
> question, "But did they?"
>
Patterns in geometric diagrams can be found to suggest anything if one chooses to torture one's imagination long enough. The nature of a good historical argument, though, is to start with facts from the culture in question that support the search for the pattern.
There are no facts, and as stated above, this particular hypothesis actually contradicts known cultural evidence. There's no point in even looking for a pattern in multi-pyramid plans. It's like looking for patterns of red cars parked at the grocery store. Every person went there at a specific time for a different purpose. Being able to "find a pattern" in the particular way people parked their red cars may be a fun exercise, but it tells us nothing about the people who are shopping for milk.
>
> MJ
>
> *Please, please spare us the mindless rhetoric of
> the ilk: “Well, it’s also possible the Great
> Pyramid was built by little green men from
> Atlantis who worshipped a god called von Daniken”
> It doesn’t work, Anthony.
> It never has and it never will.
But the argument is no different than any one that starts with speculation or coincidence as its foundation. You can't change that by asking people not to point it out.
>
> p.s. Please can we also be spared the "I do not
> know of/cannot think of a reason why they would do
> such a thing, therefore they did not do it"
> arguement.
> Thanks.
I never made such an argument. I find it rather insulting that you would purposefully misquote me in such a manner.
Please see the guidelines on quoting, or rather, misquoting people. [
www.hallofmaat.com]
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
