Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that a 250 (approximate) cubit distance
> may have been intentional is a primary level
> speculation in and of itself.
>
> Attaching any meaning to it requires layering
> speculation upon speculation. That is
> unacceptable methodology.
>
> To put it succinctly, even the 250 cubit measure
> is in serious doubt.

The distance between these two monuments is not all that different to their individual base measurements. Is 440 royals primary level speculation?. Both base and distance between have been measured by similar means. Which ever way you look at 440 it is still only an approximate as is the distance between monuments.

> Allow me to explain clearly how the geomancers
> derive it:
>
> They start with Petrie's survey data - fair enough
> - and then divide that by the value for the cubit
> derived from the King's Chamber. The problem is
> that the cubit was variable. Petrie's data showed
> that it varied at Giza - by about 1% - and the
> surviving cubit rods - see Arnold - show a similar
> variability of about 1%.

Petrie's royal cubit did not show such variation. The KC which is shaken out of true gave him a slightly larger value than the one he eventually settled upon for the most important areas of the chambers. He eventually established a royal cubit to within .005 inches (1 in 4000). That's not 1%.

Petrie astonishment at the variability outside of the chamber environment is nothing more than him encountering measures other than the royal cubit. The "royal" is aptly named for it only reveals itself in the royal chambers.

Arnold's surviving rods are a thousand years after Giza. They don't count.

> That means that a tolerance has to be applied to
> all the cubit values the geomancers quote. 1% of
> 250 cubits is 2.5 cubits. There's a 1000 cubit
> diagonal that they can "find" at Giza - which
> should have a tolerance of 10 cubits. That
> tolerance then has to be added to the tolerances
> for technical accuracy that we know they had (such
> as the sides of Khufu's pyramid being off by 8
> inches in only 756 feet).

Yes of course but you are deliberately overstating the issue

> In reality it's clear that the position of one
> pyramid wasn't set a certain number of cubits from
> the previous one - as there was a temenos wall
> round the pyramid and then another one further out
> enclosing the pyramid and the surrounding
> cemetery. If it was measured from anywhere it
> would have been from the outermost wall and would
> have been based on what had been decided for the
> overall size of the pyramid complex.

I think they worked with plans Anthony. If there was such a scheme then walls would have had nothing to do with it.

> Petrie's variable cubit at Giza must also be close
> to proof of no overall plan. The values are so
> loose that determining a "plan" is inconceivable.
> The variation is invariably used as a tool to
> allow more and more Brilliant Speculation to float
> around on the internet. Plain and simple.

It's not as variable as you state.

20.62 +/- .005 inches.

fmetrol
Graham Oaten

The great amount of labour involved in quarrying and transporting such a mass of masonry as even the casing, has always been a cause of astonishment - Sir Flinders Petrie.