Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Now, if the apex of Khafre's pyramid sat
> precisely...
> > Or should that be: if the apex of Menkaure's
> > pyramid sat precisely...
> on the imaginary line
> > projected from the apex of Khufu's pyramid
> through
> > the apex of Khafre's pyramid?
>
> MJ:
> Good grief....!
> Is that all your brain can muster...an imaginary
> "straight" line ?
> That's geometry for simpletons...child's play...a
> no-brainer...an insult to the pyramid builder's
> intelligence.

I can, with little effort, muster up a whole host of different, sophisticated – and I do mean sophisticated - geometric patterns out of the positions of three or more of the various structures at Giza, relative to each other.
And none of these patterns will have any actual relevance to historical Giza because they will have been created by me and not the various creators of the Giza structures.
Chuck in, say, Stonehenge, Teotihuacán and Angkor Wat (and St Paul’s Cathedral and the Empire State Building, if you want to ) and I could positively drown you in sophisticated geometric patterns based on the locations of these totally disparate structures, and every single pattern will be essentially meaningless to everybody past and present – with the possible exception of yourself, of course.

> Come now...you must put more effort into it than
> that.

Why?
In the absence of textual evidence (i.e. original site plans) I fall back on what is actually known about the AEs up to and including the 6th Dyn (with some flexibility), and Occam’s Razor.
Have you got a better idea – other than one that calls on anachronistic mathematics?

> Labor, time, material and skill, yet you ask for
> the three structures to be set in a overly-basic
> perfectly straight line.

I merely point out that if the apexes of a cluster of three pyramids form a perfectly straight line, then probably we would be looking at intent and not coincidence.
I firmly believe that the layout of the Giza Three was influenced to a great extent by the nature of the Plateau on which they stand, with any geometry involved very much playing second fiddle.
I see the location of Khafre’s pyramid as determined for the most part by Khafre’s apparent desire to outdo his father by cleverly building a pyramid that (through careful selection of its relative location) appears to be larger than Khufu’s but actually isn't.


> It's apparent that you haven't studied ancient
> sites throughout the world in great detail...!

But I don’t see a link between, for example, Stonehenge, Teotihuacán and Angkor Wat – different times, different cultures – and, yes, I have studied the subject.
The pyramid builders of Central and South America did not need to see or be taught about the Egyptian pyramids – all the evidence to date indicates that their ‘pyramid’ cultures developed independent of Ancient Egypt.
How anybody can seriously link Stonehenge with AE pyramids escapes me completely.

> Three pyramids set at different levels on a
> hillside, three different angles and three
> misaligned...all intentional and all fit together
> absolutely "perfect".

And where, exactly, did you find the original plan detailing this fully intentional ‘absolutely “perfect” creation?
I remind you that just about anybody can come up with a geometric pattern (ranging from simple to advanced) that ‘ties’ the Giza Three together ‘absolutely “perfect”’ – and every single one of them could be wrong.

> It's obviously clear that
> you do not know what is being demonstrated at the
> Giza site.

Indeed, I do not actually know what, if anything, the creators of the Giza complex were “demonstrating”, but I am quietly confident that whatever it was it wasn’t anything to do with complex geometry, sophisticated mathematics, and anachronistic astronomic and geodesic data.
You need to show that your mathematical findings are not coincidental, the natural product of some other simpler process.

The diagonal of a 1 unit square is 1.414, and the square root of 2 is 1.414.
If I draw a 1 unit square and draw a line from corner to opposite corner, what am I demonstrating?
Is it a) I can draw right-angled triangles or b) I know about the square root of numbers?

MJ




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2009 11:46AM by MJ Thomas 2.