Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 size of the outcrop that Khufu’s pyramid is built on is not known.
Your “hundred thousand tons of rock...” may well be an extremely gross exaggeration.


> > 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.

Tunnelling might not have been necessary and I did not suggest any need for 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!!

Taking the mathematical texts into consideration is not being dependent on them.
That the pyramid builders knew and utilized right-angle triplets is at best a plausible hypothesis.


> > 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.

And highly circumstantial it is, too, and as such moves us forward not a jot.


> Now you ask why they did it? It was to save them
> from digging diagonally from corner to corner to
> confirm square!

But I didn’t ask why.


> > > 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!

I had noticed.


> > 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.

Make everything fit what?

Have you read Cole’s report all the way through, I wonder.
One advantage Cole’s survey has over Petrie’s is the discovery and subsequent plotting of the marker – known as Borchardt’s Line - in the pavement on the north side.


> > 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!

Hardly novel, Clive.
I would have thought it a matter of common sense.


> > 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.

So it appears, but how do you know this is what was intended?


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

Then would you care to tell us how the pyramid builders carried out this astonishing alleged achievement?


> > 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..."

Allow me to put this statement its proper context by quoting as well the four paragraphs you conveniently, or so it would seem, leave out.
Quote:
“The angles were measured on 4 arcs with a 6 inch Troughton and Simms micrometer theodolite.
The top of the flagstaff on the top of the Pyramid was visible at points1, 6 and 7 and was included in the round of angles at these stations.
The closure in angle of this traverse was found to be 9.6” which was adjusted by adding 1.2” to each angle.
Using these adjusted angles, the co-ordinates were computed and a closing error of 8 millimetres in North direction and 0 millimetre in East direction was found. These co-ordinates were adjusted by the normal traverse method for closure.
The position of the top of the flagstaff was computed from the intersection of the sights at points 6 and 7. The computed horizontal angle at 1 to the top of the flagstaff and point 2 was found to check with the observed angle within 3.0” of arc.”
Unquote.

To this I should like to add the following:
Quote:
his very close agreement of these mean dimensions shows the accuracy with which Prof. Flinders Petrie determined the data on which he based his assumptions.
…These differences in azimuth are due to the fact that the new azimuths are found from the actual directions of the sides determined from the excavated pavement, whereas those of Prof. Petrie are of a hypothetical base obtained by computing “a square that shall pass through the points of the casing found on each side, and having also its corners lying on the diagonals of the sockets.”*. In the lists of azimuths given above it will be seen that the most discrepant side is the East side which differs by about 3’ from the other three. In order to check this a further excavation was made on this side 23 metres south of the original one. In this excavation the pavement was found, and on it the line of the casing blocks was clearly shown. This line was found to lie exactly in the line as already extended, thus confirming the accuracy of the original extension.

Whether you like it or not, Cole and his team had a number of advantages over Petrie and it is this simple fact that makes their 1925 survey probably the more accurate of the two.

MJ