Hello Jiri,

You write, ‘I don't share your opinion. Note that although I had no way of knowing, whose measurements would turn out more systematic, from the very onset I opted for Petrie. This scholar has proven himself, he showed devotion to Giza, put enormous efforts into his objective, and above all - he was independent. In short, I trust Petrie more.

Unless you have evidence to show that Cole and his team were less than fully professional, I would withdraw that statement if I were you.


You write, ‘Of course, now I trust his measurements even more, because of their exact agreement to a distinct set of exact ideas, by which it is easy to reproduce them. That is a heck of a big reason, as the two reinforce each other.’

I think it is a very poor reason.
What you are doing is picking the sets of data that fit your theory.
What you should be doing is studying very closely why there are differences between one set of data and another.
What you will learn is that often the differences are down to practical issues, which then enables you to decide which set of data is likely to be the most accurate.
For example, some of Petrie’s measurements differ to Piazzi Smyth’s, but this is not down to any incompetence on Smyth’s part; on the contrary it is mainly because Petrie had surveying equipment that was in some respects superior to that used by Smyth (chains instead of rods, for example).
Petrie’s measurement for the length of the Descending Passage is incorrect because compacted debris at the bottom of the Passage prevented his seeing the small lip at the junction of the end of the Descending passage floor and the start of the Subterranean Passage floor – the full actual length of the floor was established later by John and Morton Edgar.
Returning to the differences between Petrie’s and Cole’s surveys, if you read Petrie’s and Cole’s accounts in full you soon learn that Cole had an advantage over Petrie in so far as he (Cole) had a team of workers clear more of the mountains of sand and debris heaped up against the Pyramid’s faces than Petrie was able to, thus creating a clearer line of sight at the Pyramid’s pavement.
I am not a surveyor but even I can see the advantage this gave Cole.


You ask, ‘’And why is it that almost everybody chooses to study Petrie's measurements, and not Cole's?’

In my experience it is often for the same reason as you choose Petrie over Cole, i.e. Petrie’s readings fit your theory better than Cole’s do.
The other reason is, surprisingly, that some researchers are simply unaware of the existence of Cole’s survey data.


You write, ‘In the end, the average side of the Great Pyramid comes out a centimetre longer in Cole's version, a result which confirms Petrie even more.’

It confirms nothing more than the fact that you are picking one set of data over another purely on the grounds of which one best fits your theory.


I wrote, ‘The base of the Pyramid is not square (see Cole’s webpage for details)

You reply, ‘Everybody but you sees as common sense that the planners had started out with regular squares as the bases for the pyramids.’

No, Jiri, what I see is the intention for the base of the pyramid to be square but in the case of Khufu’s pyramid the actual product being closer to a parallelogram than a square.
Is this ‘distortion’ from a perfect square intentional?
I don’t know.


You continue, ‘Only after that point do opinions diverge, and while one group thinks that the discrepancies from regularity are due to builder errors, the other one thinks that the basic plan underwent further refinement, due to which each side was assigned a slightly different length.’

If you hold that what some people see as discrepancies (a less than perfect square, for example) are not down to good old ‘builder error’, then the onus is on you to provide clear evidence that the AEs were able to survey over large distances with the accuracy you claim - taking an actual measurement from, say, the corner of one pyramid to the corner of another about half-a-mile away and saying that the measurement was intended is not such evidence.


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

You reply, ‘These dimensions have just proven themselves right on the dot, and utterly systematic. That's a big argument for Petrie's correctness.’

As nobody knows what the intended and finished dimensions of these pyramids were, what you are claiming here is quite simply nonsensical.


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

To which you respond, ‘You have the answers above.’

No, all that you have provided is your answers not the answers.


You continue, ‘It would help matters if you admitted in an explicit manner that my Giza Plan truly is in exact agreement with Petrie's plan, and that no other proposal comes as close.’

Sorry, I cannot and will not admit in any manner what-so-ever that your “Giza Plan truly is in exact agreement with Petrie's plan…”
Equally, I cannot and will not admit in any manner what-so-ever that “…no other proposal comes as close.’
I say this because your hypothesis is based on questionable data.
I say again, we don’t know:
What the intended dimensions of the Giza pyramids were.
What the finished dimensions of the Giza pyramids were.
How accurate Petri’s survey of the pyramids and their locations on the plateau is.


You write, ‘These facts are self-evident.”

I can only disagree, and for the reasons just given.


You write, ‘If you deny me this satisfaction of having a solid basis for our debate, all your arguments will appear basically flawed and disingenuous to me.’

And what, exactly, Jiri, is your “solid basis”?
I say again, your hypothesis is based on questionable data (this is a matter of fact and not my opinion), therefore you do not, in effect, have a ‘solid basis’.

I do not know whether or not there was an overall plan for the Giza necropolis.
What I do know, however, is that it is possible to create a veritable myriad of seemingly meaningful geometric patterns out of the data given – how many of them would have had any meaning at all to the planner of the Plateau is, of course, another matter.

MJ