| May 2, 2024, 8:17 am UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Alternative Geometry and Numerology - Alternative mathematics discussion > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| November 04, 2007 06:19PM |
Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only was suggesting why not 20 cubits north or say
> 15 cubits east ?
It couldn't have gone much further east. There is an area of fill there. The pyramid is placed as far to the east as it can be and not be on the fill. After the Bent Pyramid they were always careful about a good solid foundation.
>
> That statement was total conjecture and contained
> absolutely no facts whatsoever. It was simply a
> guess.
Its a logical conclusion based on the topography of the area and observations of pyramid building ... not a guess. There's a difference. Taking the way they are laid out and laying images over them until things fit and then claiming the overlay is the cause for the layout is guessing without any evidence, other than circular, to base it on.
Kat
Ma'at Moderator
Founder and Director of The Hall of Ma'at
Contributing author to Archaeological Fantasies:
How pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public
"If you panic, you're lost" -- W. T. 'Watertight' Southard
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only was suggesting why not 20 cubits north or say
> 15 cubits east ?
It couldn't have gone much further east. There is an area of fill there. The pyramid is placed as far to the east as it can be and not be on the fill. After the Bent Pyramid they were always careful about a good solid foundation.
>
> That statement was total conjecture and contained
> absolutely no facts whatsoever. It was simply a
> guess.
Its a logical conclusion based on the topography of the area and observations of pyramid building ... not a guess. There's a difference. Taking the way they are laid out and laying images over them until things fit and then claiming the overlay is the cause for the layout is guessing without any evidence, other than circular, to base it on.
Kat
Ma'at Moderator
Founder and Director of The Hall of Ma'at
Contributing author to Archaeological Fantasies:
How pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public
"If you panic, you're lost" -- W. T. 'Watertight' Southard
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.