Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hermione Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
>
> > > The pyramids are obviously not built on
> shifting sand.
> >
> > Over 4,500 years, it's presumably blown about
> a
> > bit, and some of the stones has worn away or
> > fallen off the lowest courses ... I daresay
> that
> > measuring the sides was not an easy task at
> all.
>
> You've changed the drift. The pyramids stand on
> solid rock. Not sand.
>
> > What I
> > actually said was that the sand itself, the
> ground
> > level, might have moved slightly since the GP
> was
> > first built. Not an unreasonable supposition
> in
> > the circumstances ...
>
> I've read somewhere that the limestone layer at
> Giza rests on granite. Hence Giza foundations are
> rock-solid. One way to tell that the ground was
> not shifting was to look at the pyramid mantles,
> which had survived thousands of years in
> apparently excellent condition until dismantling
> by Arabs after an earthquake destroyed Cairo.
>
> > They are not like
> > > three ships tossed by stormy seas, and
> there
> > is no
> > > danger that the pyramids will ever
> collide
> > with on
> > > another, no matter how the sands will
> shift.
> >
> > No idea quite how we got to the notion of
> the
> > Gizamids sailing about the plateau like
> yachts at
> > a regatta ...
>
> Just a little exaggeration of your explanation.
>
>
> > I
> > > wonder if you agree that I have an
> elegant
> > system,
> > > which reproduces Petrie's Giza layout of
> the
> > three
> > > pyramids exactly, and if you have taken
> a
> > good
> > > look at it.
>
> > What I've seen of your work so far doesn't
> lead me
> > to think that it's much different from any
> other
> > collection of squares, triangles,
> dodecahedrons
> > and all the rest that I've seen plastered
> over the
> > Giza Plateau during the last few years.
> Unless
> > you have some new evidence to offer,
> therefore,
> > I'm afraid that there seems little else to
> > discuss.
>
> Classic denial uses the sudden Babel-tower
> syndrome, i.e.; all of a sudden the capacity to
> appreciate the difference between basic concepts
> like successful, and not successful, or, close,
> closer, and exact, becomes lost. A collection of
> geometrical figures is not necessarily bad per se.
> A lot depends on what the figures do.
> Quite simply, this 'set of geometrical figures'
> forges Petrie's map orders of magnitude better
> than any previous 'collections of figures'. The
> name of the game is retracing actions of the
> ancient architect in the construction of the plan.
> If you do that, you will have recreated the
> original plan. This is no different from
> re-engineering a watch. I am worried because you
> seem to not understand this concept.
> The recreation scores a clear success. Inasmuch,
> it is highly significant to the stated purpose of
> this board. After all, a successful solution
> should put an end to this 'nuisance of plastering
> circles all over Giza' once and for all. You
> should welcome it. If nothing else, you should at
> least remember the valiant attempt, which manages
> to falsify Petrie's plan. Therefore, I would like
> to hear something more reasonable from you than a
> brush-off.

If you'd produce some evidence, Jiri, I'd be very happy to discuss it. Unfortunately, all the existing evidence indicates that there was no pre-planning on the Giza Plateau.



Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me