Hello Clive,

You write, ‘You wanted evidence of a 360 degrees circle used at Giza...right?
I asked four times, how many examples do you require and you refused to answer...right?

How wrong you are, for in the “Rhind-Giza connection?” thread I posted:
‘You [Clive] write, ‘Now, for the third time, you have refused to answer my simple question. How many examples do you require to be convinced that the AE used 360 degrees when constructing the Giza site?

Okay, let's cut to the quick here; you post all of the examples you have to date and I’ll pick out the ones I think have potential as possible evidence that the builders of the Giza necropolis measured gradients and slopes in degrees.

Mind you, Clive, it’s going to take an authenticated contemporary or near contemporary AE text showing degrees being used to actually convince me that you and others are correct on this particular issue.’


You write, ‘Now that I give you two you ignore them completely and introduce features that are irrelevant to the post.’

What arrant nonsense, Clive.
How can my writing several posts on these ‘examples’ possibly be construed as my ignoring them?
Could it be that what you see as me ignoring your ‘examples’ is in fact your personal reaction to my rejecting them as unworkable?
As for my introducing irrelevant features, I merely pointed out that the centre of your blue circle is tantalisingly close to the top of a course, and through not knowing whether or not you see any mathematical significance in the superstructure’s courses, asked if this was relevant.


You write, ‘Well...if you "can" see what "automatically" transpired then you would realize that I used a mathematical decimal number for pi and multiplied it by 20, converted it into an angular measure using a 360 degrees system.
Then I took the same number pi and divided into 100 and applied it to the same 360 degrees system...that's the number pi multiplied and divided..."and"...and 360 degrees circle.
The result is they intersect at the center line of the Kc.’

Yes, Clive, I can see that.
However, you have agreed with me that one will naturally produce the other.
Do you know which of the two the intentional dimension was?

Why is the mid-line of the KC where it is?
Has it not occurred to you that with the Grand Gallery floor ending above the E-W axis of the Pyramid’s base, the KC had to be moved southward of this axis simply to accommodate the south end of the Gallery and allow for the shift from limestone to granite?
What about the need for a portcullis system between the Gallery and the KC?
Has it not occurred to you that the N-S position of the KC may have nothing to do with your blue circle but everything to do with the planning of the Great Step, the passage linking it to the Antechamber, the Antechamber itself, the passage between the Antechamber and the KC, and the KC itself?
Are you, through your diagram, claiming that the KC, the two passages, the Antechamber, and the Great Step were squeezed into the 21rc space between the face of the Great Step and the centre of your blue circle after the circle had been produced in the plans?
Why is the KC at the height it is?
Why is the QC at the level it is?
And so on, and so on…


You write, ‘Now I want you to chose any other number but 360 for the division of the circle and see where the two lines intersect. I guarantee that it is nowhere near the KC center line.’

Sorry, Clive, but I see this as nothing more than yet another of your pointless exercises.
Yes, your diagram works in terms of geometry, but so what?
Yes, the height of Menkaure’s pyramid is close to the centre of your blue circle, but again so what?
I could with a little effort find the height of Khafre’s pyramid ‘hidden’ inside Khufu’s.
For goodness sake, man, I could find the distance from Earth to Pluto via Alpha Proximi, if I upped the effort a little.


You write, ‘IOW....you can only conclude from this illustration that the ancients used a 360 degrees system and knew pi to at least 3 decimal places.

Your diagram allows no such conclusion.
Once again what you claim is completely nonsensical.


You write, ‘If you elect to neglect this simple evidence then eventually, in time, you will become the only individual to do so.’

As I have already pointed out to you, Clive, I have far from elected to neglect your supposed evidence.
I have taken your diagram apart and found it simply does not work as evidence for the AEs measuring angles in degrees.
What you see as neglect is actually disagreement.


I wrote, ‘But why is the King’s Chamber 21 royal cubits south of the face of the Great Step?
Why isn’t it centred over the E-W axis of the Pyramid’s base as is the Queen’s Chamber?

You reply, ‘As you claim... It is where Khufu or his architect wanted it to be...!
Why should I tell you? You don't read what I post and consistently drift off into your own world.

I find your turning a person’s objective criticism of your work into “He/she is ignoring what I write, doesn’t understand maths”, and so on and so forth, absolutely fascinating.


You write, ‘Now you know why you lack understanding of the Giza site...everything is there because of the architect...right?

Wrong; the architects (note the plural) of the Giza necropolis were cogs in a number of wheels.


You write, ‘That puts you right back to the beginning when you first studied this site.
How many years...30?
What a waste.

Tell you what, Clive, when my hypothesis on how Khufu’s pyramid was planned is finished (well, miracles have been known to happen outside the pages of the Bible)* I’ll send you a copy so you can read and study it in full (and comfort) and become better qualified to judge whether or not, in your opinion, I’ve wasted my time with it.

MJ

*it's just occurred to me that if I were to spend as much time and effort on completing my hypothesis as I do writing responses to your posts, I would probably finish it by next Xmas...