Scott Creighton's recent work involved the angles 43 degrees and 47 degrees so I decided to see what else I could find and so I was fooling around dividing 440 by 411.2 and noticed that lo and behold it gave me the tan of, not exactly 43 degrees but 43.06 degrees. Pretty close I thought. Next I was looking at his image and decided to divide a couple of other measurements (which you will see on the diagram below) and lo and behold this gave me virtually the same tan and angle. I found that most interesting and then while studying Clive Ross' pages he gave me an even better in your face ratio that also gave us the same ratio. I found this stunning and again I was amazed that Giza could continue to yield up secrets to me and others when I was convinced I had it studied so thoroughly. Please enjoy today's diagram.




The actual ratios realized were for:

895.56/836.42 = 1.0707061045886038114822696731307

439.88/411.04 = 1.0701634877384196185286103542234

1512.00/1411.25 = 1.0713906111603188662533215234721

Now while looking at these figures I couldn't help but notice that they were awfully close to a number I had seen on numerous occassions and that would be the sine of my favourite number and in my opinion it was the original angle and this was the original sin(e) = 0.70710678118654752440084436210485

So if you ask me I think the ratios are telling us to study sine 45 more closely and the actual ratio in this overall plan here on the plateau at Giza just has to be ... 1.070710678118654752440084436210485

And for this to be random goes way beyond the bounds of even the weakest definiton of the word. This is no co-incidence folks. Giza was planned, as Clive says from start to finish in the most minute detail before the first stone was ever cut from a quarry.

Cheers untill next time

Don Barone

"There is nothing as impenetrable as a closed mind"
and ..." if everything is a coincidence what is the point of studying or measuring or analyzing anything ?" db