Jon_B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Perring gives an angle for the Pyramid before
> stating a height so it seems clear to me that he
> derived the height mathematically just as Petrie
> did but he'd got BOTH the width and the angle
> wrong so his figures are simply not usable.

Actually Jon...his list of measures begin with the two base widths and heights followed by his calculated angle of 52d 20’

> This is the top of the 201 layer which is the last
> complete one. When Petrie did his measurements
> layers 202 and 203 were just fragments so there's
> nothing surprising in Petrie using the 201 layer
> for his measurements.

That is true, and it could very well be coincidental, but why repeat the measures...what bothering him enough to re-measure only to find a discrepancy of a few inches? What was the significance?

> Here's a drawing using Petrie's layer measurements
> for the Great Pyramid with his measurements for
> Khafre's Pyramid in pink. I've truncated Khafre's
> to give a 9 foot top which, as I said, I would
> think is correct. The black layer is number 201
> and is the one described by Petrie in the quote.

Your illustration is well understood and I used to believe exactly what you have drawn, but it is not correct.

I’ll attempt to explain...hopefully a little clearer.

G2 is presently measured as 262 Rc above ground level...that can’t be altered.
Perring records a 9 foot flat top.
The base width is 411.3Rc...Petrie’s accurate measures.
If you draw your triangle using the above, you will discover the slope of the side is 1.29:1 (52.25 degrees)...not the 4:3...53.13 degrees that has been used for many years. Perring recorded 52.33 degrees with a completed height of 454.25’ or 265 Rc...very close.
The narrow flat at the apex is the deciding factor...it confirms that the 4:3 ratio of the base casing cannot be the correct outer angle of construction.

I believe the builders did this for several reasons.
I have stated previously that covering the complete structures with a finished layer of angular stone provides only one angle ratio per pyramid. By removing part of the casing stones it exposes the secondary “inner” slope. By truncating the apex and using it as a finished height presents us with a third angular measure.

Your photos show the large amount of stone missing at the base of G2, you also have photos illustrating the missing casing of G1 at the apex.
The designers were smart...they elected to construct only the lower course of angled stones for G1 along with the upper segment of angular casing stones for G2.
The amount of time, energy and material saved was enormous. They actually accomplished more by using less.
That is the easy part...now to try and prove it.

Your illustration indicates Perring’s 108 inch, or 9’ or 5.3Rc flat at the apex of G2. Comparing it to the flat of G1, Petrie gives a measure of 430 inches at the same height...or 35.8’ or 21Rc...four times wider than the top of G2!
But he also claims that the upper section of G1 is void of angular casing and he calculates that it would increase the width to 583 inches or 48-1/2’ or 28.3Rc across the flat. Now it would be 5-1/2 times wider than the flat of G2.

The designers were manipulative with their mathematics.
The 4:3 ratio of G2’s base stones applies to its “inner” width of G2...(400Rc+...691+ feet Perring). This produces a similar height close to the 266 Rc value 691/2xx4/3 = 461 feet or 268Rc.
Here is the trick:
Applying the 4/3 ratio to the outer width of G2 produces the height of “G1” without the casing (275 Rc) and Petries measures at the 262 level confirms this core height if construction continued.
This leaves us with one other measure...the height of G2’s flat top.
Easy...it’s 4/pi (angle from G1) times the outer base width of G2...! (4/pix 205.7 = 262Rc).
IOW...the 4/3 ratio of G2 times its outer base measure gives the “peak” height of G1’s core as we witness today.
And...the 4/pi ratio of G1 times the outer base measure of G2 gives the “truncated” height of G2 as witnessed today.
It reads as a complicated scenario until you begin to realize how ingeniously simple it was to accomplish. It had me fooled for over ten years, but I always knew that the visible small flat of G2 was not according to Petrie’s findings...it couldn’t be...and it isn’t.

Best.
Clive