Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Jammer ...
>
> I tend to agree with this. Any claim of an
> accurate solution to Giza (my own included) where

Don, are you claiming a unique solution to Giza distinguished by pinpoint accuracy?
Or, is that your way of acknowledging the exactness of my reconstruction, mention it in passing?

> pinpoint accuracy is demonstrated must eventually
> come to grips with the fact that THE PYRAMIDS ARE
> NOT EXACTLY SQUARE ! Any final solution has to
> eventually describe in detail why the shortfall
> over a simple short distance of about 440 cubits.

It's not hard to explain, Don. The Grand Plan of Giza I found has a thoroughly dynamic character. You are familiar with my report, I think, so you know what I mean. You see the process go through stages of development, and tinkering, and growing up from a little golden rectangle into a mature system resplendent in calibrated values, and in general, putting on quite a show to an appreciative observer like me, or you, but I suppose not to the layman. All this in addition to being exact should precipitate some attention from the public, because this is a historical first, and also requires others that they come to grips with this fact, which is here to stay.
Don, you may have a hypothesis for the Grand Plan of Giza, I have a solution, and that makes a big difference. It is narrowly focused on a small area of reality, but in that realm it is a solution.
I also have the following hypothesis. Having established the basic plan, in which all the pyramids are perfect squares, the planners continued to develop it. This means that the pyramids had to change,and lose their regularity while the total perimeter had remained constant, in order to allow adding encoded information. When the sides are different, instead of getting only two values to play with, we get six: - The total of the four sides, the average, and each unique side.
The same philosophy of efficacious coding also suggests a good reason why the pyramid's perimeter should not be 4 x 400 cubits even. Above all, there is absolutely no need to make a side 400 cubits long. If the value is to be written on the wall, so to speak, all that has to be done is make the constructed value over 439.5 cubits. It will then perforce round out up to 400 even. And so in our construction, the first value obtained for one side of the Great Pyramid was 439.50009.. cubits less than 1/10,000 cubit from an exact half-cubit

Next, a single circle manages to produce at once two new values for the side:
Value a)
439.799902.. less than 1/10,000 cubit from an exact eight-tenths of a cubit.
Now look what Petrie gives for the south side of G1: 9068.2 inches, which translates into
439.798213 cubits, which is a millimeter off the above value of 439.7999 . A millimeter is under the radar scanning for inaccuracies, hence we can observe that the pyramid does record this stage of the construction, whether coincidence or not.
Value b)
439.83008 .. looks calibrated as well .

The last value is just 0.0022 of a cubit, or 1.18 millimeter longer than Petrie's value

439.82782340.. cubits 9,068.8 inches

and so it becomes the final length of the reconstructed side - 9,068.85 inches. The actual value is a hair under this, so it too would round out down to 9,068.8 inches - an exact match to Petrie's value. Perhaps, I should use capitals like you on such important occasions:
AN EXACT MATCH TO PETRIE'S PLAN!!! There you have it.

Petrie's plan is about 2.618 mm, 0.1 inch off the perfect side length of 439.823 for Pi reckoning with the rounded out value of G1's height in cubits. At any rate both values give Pi to four decimals.

The last compelling explanation to why the side of G1 should not be 400 cubits even points out the fact that if this were so, then all those other significant and beautifully calibrated measurements would be transformed into completely unattractive values.

Observation: Petrie's values work with the exact plan, Cole's don't. Could Cole have chosen the wrong method of mesurement? Here is a quote from him:

" These differences in azimuth are due to the fact that the new azimuths are found from the actual directions of the sides determined from the excavated pavement, whereas those of Prof. Petrie are of a hypothetical base obtained by computing “a square that shall pass through the points of the casing found on each side, and having also its corners lying on the diagonals of the sockets."
But since when did it become known that the pyramid sides are slightly concave? Post 1925 would seem likely, and so Cole didn't take this factor into accountI.
In contrast, Petrie's method took him safely past this peril. in my opinion he was also correct in assuming that since there were square sockets at the pyramid corners then the pyramid sides must have met on the diagonals of those sockets.
Because of the slight concavity of the sides, obviously the builders had a perfect chance to measure a clear line of sight between any two adjacent corners. So of course could Petrie, who was very good at it. We don't know if the concavity was still in effect after installation of the casing, but if so, then Cole's method of establishment of lines along sections on the side would have been problematic.
If the precision and accuracy evident from the surviving casing blocks, and the same qualities so evident in the Grand Gallery and the King's Chamber are any indication, then the Egyptian surveyors had been quite capable of the same accuracy when laying out the pyramid. We should expect it to be more regular and compatible with Petrie's observations. Cole's markedly more divergent observations do not correspond to the big picture too well..