Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ:
>
> > What makes you think that in the case of
> Khufu's
> > pyramid its builders didn't simply cut wide
> > channels through the rock outcrop from corner
> to
> > corner at surrounding ground level and then
> take
> > the necessary sightings and measurements?
>
> They didn't do it because there were clever
> individuals...that's why!

Yet another non-answer.


> > When you consider the amount of work involved
> in
> > the preparation of the foundations of
> Khafre's
> > pyramid, there's no doubt that Khufu's
> builders
> > would have had no qualms about cutting
> through the
> > outcrop of rock.
>
> You haven't cut rock...please…don't assume they
> did it "our way".

Who said anything about "our way"?
The evidence from the quarries and actual cut blocks tells us we are dealing with highly skilled stone masons using the most basic of tools.


> > Well, the maths works, I'll give you that.
>
> Do you actually believe they used the Pythagorean
> theory?

I'm not at all sure whether they did or not.
If the contents of the mathematical texts are anything to go by, then I would say it was certainly within their maths capabilities.


> > Now, what is your evidence that the pyramid
> > builders might have used such a method?
>
> Actually they did. Measure the width between G2’s
> base and the north and west walls of the
> plateau...it’s a clue.

Measuring A to B only tells us what they did - not how and why they did it...


> > Assuming that the intent was for it to be a
> > right-angle, the accuracy of the north-west
> corner
> > at 89:59:58 (after Cole, 1925) is quite
> > extraordinary.
>
> Again...you are assuming...don’t.

But, Clive, in many of your posts on the subject you busily heap one assumption upon another with almost reckless glee!


> North and south sides of G1 are parallel...does
> that tell you something?

The sides are indeed parallel - the actual difference is a mere 34mms shift over 230,454mms.
In Cole's measurements of the sides, corners and orientation of the Pyramid's base I have found what appears to be a deliberate plan, a plan that is a near perfect match for what is actually there.
The rub is that such a pattern requires the AE surveyors to have been able to set out the base with literally millimetric accuracy over distances in excess of 230 metres.
Part of my approach to the subject of the AE pyramids is to first ask: could they have done it (whatever 'it' may be) had they wanted to?
In the case of the actual Pyramid base being exactly as intended (to within 2-3mms), I'm not at all sure they could have done it had they wanted to.


> > However, the remaining three corners are
> noticably
> > less accurate in terms of an intended
> right-angle.
> > Have you any suggestions as to why this is?
>
> They had lots of time to measure the precise
> angles and lengths…and they did…over and over
> again until it was perfect !

Are you saying that the lengths, angles of corners, and orientation if this Pyramid's base is exactly as intended?


> Note:
> Cole measured the height of the first course
> almost 1 inch higher than Petrie. That is why his
> measures differ from Petrie.
> To tell you the truth…I still prefer W.P’s over
> Cole’s.

Please see: [www.kheraha.co.uk]
Once again, Clive, things are not quite as you would have your readers believe.

MJ