Look deep before you dive into unknown waters.

This is a serious aspect of Giza that should be resolved through new measures of G2.
Presently we have a mixture of measures recorded from 100+ years ago and there is a conflict between the two most reliable sets of data available.

Petrie, who I have the greatest admiration for, calculated the height of G2 by measuring several base stones angles having a 4:3 ratio (53.13 degrees) and compared the angle to its base width…(as far as his notes imply). From this, he established a completed height for the structure but neglected to state what the present height is or any other upper measures.
It tends to give the impression that the man did not give detailed attention to the structure’s height.

The second set is that of Perring who does the opposite.
He enters his measures for the base length (close agreement to Petrie), the side (hypotenuse) measure to the truncated level and the width of the flat at the apex as 9 feet. He applies an angle slope of 52d20” but there is no detail of how he derived this measure.

The question is:
Which angle is correct?



If Petrie’s measure of the base stone represents the structures actual designed height then G2 would reach 274+Rc above the base; with Perring’s it only reaches a 267Rc height.
It is the flat at the apex along with today’s measure of the structure that indicate Petrie having assumed incorrectly…happens all the time…we are human!
Petrie’s 274 height and today’s 262 actual height produce a width at the apex of 31 feet…21 feet wider than Perring’s measures.
There is only one answer that resolves this difference.
Petrie erred by assuming the base casing angle representing the structure’s angle.


Best.
Clive