Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I have to agree with Joe S. here. If there is an
> overall plan at Giza in my opinion the satelite
> pyramids must be part of the whole as should be
> all the wall enclosures etc.

Why would you have to agree? Joe told me in his own way that he does not like my study. Rather than addressing the intrinsic aspects of my work, the critique relies on what is not included. In so doing, it negates the fact that my recreation of the Giza plan from a tabula rasa is successful. I would have expected your appreciation of the fact that the reconstruction is, let's face it, exact enough to plainly be the correct solution.

I don't see why you should object to the idea that the three pyramids are in a category of their own. Face it, Don, I took on a concrete, and well defined problem, whose existence has nothing to do with me.
The other structures probably are parts of an overall plan, and should enhance the plan's overall impact, but as I said they are secondary. If you point me to data as reliable as Petrie's on these secondary structures, I will add them into my plan engineered from exact ideas, and seek continuation. How does all this detract from the value of my solution to a specific narrowly defined problem? It demonstrates how the three were done as a unified design. The design is completely self-sufficient.
Since you are familiar with some of my older work, I am surprised that you didn't pick up on the importance of this particular discovery in that it is yet another example of prehistoric constructionism, which I had identified in a 14,000 years old engraving from southern France, and then in the monkey geoglyph from Nasca, Peru, whose age is unknown, IMO. The same style has carried to Egypt, I found it before in the so called Abydos Helicopter, and now in the three big Giza pyramids. In each of these cases, the works themselves can be reconstructed in essentially the same manner that I just used for Giza. Of course, the more complex those works, the harder it is to find a complete solution. They are works of an advanced prehistoric civilization. They mitigate my surprise at the high level solution I found for Giza. They mitigate my surprise that it was me, who found this Giza solution. I found it because of training I got from these other similar works.
While researchers have never devoted any attention to the subjects of my previous researches, Giza is different. So to speak, I am even standing on the shoulders of the greats, no matter how much they might like to throw me off, and no matter how our combined height still does not get us to the cusp of the hole we are in
Seriously, my study serves to confirm Legon's perceptions on the value of the Royal Cubit, and also picks up on some ideas by Jim Alison, Robin Cook, and Chris Tedder. Without the illuminating background of the so called Pyramid Square, however, those ideas were a bit like Plato's shadows dancing on a cave wall.
So, what is it that leads you to negate this discovery? Is it because the cubits don't agree with your preference? I get 439.83 cubits for one average G1 side. I've seen you say that it should be 439.88 cubits. While that value may confirm some of your speculations, it also destroys the Pi precision in the equation with the pyramid's height, a rather disappointing consequence.
Regards,
Jiri