Hello Jiri,

I’ve just been reading through your hypothesis at [www.vejprty.com] and I am not at all comfortable with the way you have based it on some incorrect data and some unknown factors.

The length of the royal cubit used in the planning of Khufu’s pyramid is not known for certain, but it is probably safe to say that it was between 523mms and 524mms (20.59” and 20.63”).
It is not known what the intended length of the sides was.
The intended height of the Pyramid is not known.

You base your hypothesis in part on Petrie’s measurements of the base of Khufu’s pyramid, yet these measurements were superseded in 1925 by Cole (see [www.kheraha.co.uk] for full details).
According to Cole, the mean lengths of the sides at the base are:
North 230,253 mms
South 230,454 mms
East 230,391 mms
West 230, 357mms
The mean difference between the shortest and longest sides = 201 mms (7.9”).
The base of the Pyramid is not square (see Cole’s webpage for details)
The length of the north side from the marker to the west end is 115,090 mms, whereas the distance from the marker to the east end is 115,161 mms – a difference of 71 mms (2.8”).

The dimensions (both actual and intended) of Khafre’s and Menkare’s pyramids are markedly less certain than those of Khufu’s pyramid.

How do you reconcile the above with your assertion that your ‘Giza Plan’ is the most accurate yet?

As I see it, you have too many variables and inaccuracies in your raw data to be able to even suggest that your ‘Plan’ is more accurate than anybody else’s.

MJ