MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > they were clever individuals...that's why!
> Yet another non-answer.
It is "the" answer.
Why would they cut through 460 meters (1510 feet) of rock when they could simply varify a square from external measures? If you had this task to perform you would stop and think before removing a hundred thousand tons of rock...you've got to think these things out MJ.
> 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.
Nobody is questioning their ability to cut rock accurately and you know it. And to tunnel through the core from corner to corner didn't require precision.
> 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.
You are depending on the written word again...they knew right-angle triplets...a fact!!
> Measuring A to B only tells us what they did - not
> how and why they did it...
Pardon? You asked for evidence and there it is. Now you ask why they did it? It was to save them from digging diagonally from corner to corner to confirm square!
> > 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.
North and south sides only...not the other two!
> 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.
Cole averaged his closing measure to make everything fit.
> 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?
Wow...that's novel!
> 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.
It's set out as a parallelogram.
> Are you saying that the lengths, angles of
> corners, and orientation if this Pyramid's base is
> exactly as intended?
Absolute!
> Once again, Clive, things are not quite as you
> would have your readers believe.
I have Cole's measures.
From Cole:
"...The closure in angle of this traverse was found to be 9.6” which was adjusted by adding 1.2” to each angle..."
Also: Petrie's compared to Cole's.
NE corner 58.6…59.6…delta = +1”
SW corner 57.6…59.8…delta = +2.2”
NW corner 58.0…59.8…delta = +1.8”
Irrelevant of what system these gents used, there is something wrong with one of them when measuring a mere 58+ inches from the top of a stone to ground level. Petrie measured and re-measured because he knew there was something wrong. Cole only set up his tools and ran with it. You can run with Cole, but Petrie gets my nod of approval on this one.
Best.
Clive
