Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > QUOTE
>
> > My understanding is that the evidence
> available to
> > date is very much in favour of the view that
> there
> > was no pan- or trans-generational scheme at
> Giza.
> > However, I do not see a problem with Khafre
> > locating his pyramid according to the terrain
> (as
> > I said before, I hold the view that Khafre
> had his
> > pyramid built where it is in order to outdo
> his
> > father, Khufu, without having to build a
> larger
> > pyramid), and then tweaking some of the
> distances
> > between the two pyramids for reasons that
> appealed
> > to him and or his architect.
> > This is much the same as my wondering whether
> or
> > not Menkaure put his pyramid where it is
> because
> > he liked the pattern that it formed with the
> > pyramids of his father and brother – a copy
> of a
> > certain star constellation…
>
> And just because that alignment is obviously out
> by
> some cubits, we (the public) are to believe
> the Egyptians were sloppy.
> You believe a lot of unfounded assumptions, MJ.

How can we know “the Egyptians were sloppy” with their measuring when we don’t know for certain what measurement they were aiming for?



> >
> > > Beats me, why you say
> > > that commonly accepted theory is
> meaningful
> > > only
> > > to me.
> >
> > This theory is far, far from commonly
> accepted.
>
> The reconstruction relies on pure geometric
> theory
> from start until more than halfway in. That
> theory
> is (extremely) meaningful to everybody.

Not to me, it isn’t – and I do know quite a bit about the subject matter (though I am no expert on it)


> > As I mentioned before, your theory is yet
> another
> > variation on a theme, and is, IMO, just as
> > unacceptable as its many predecessors – and
> no
> > doubt the many that will follow it.
>
> My theory is not just another theory. Prior
> theories
> failed in reproducing the layout with significant
> accuracy. My theory reproduces the layout with
> microscopic accuracy - unlike the others.
> True or not? True, check it yourself. Use CAD.
>
> >
> > > It was the Egyptian designers, who made
> the
> > Giza
> > > design what it is, not me, nor chance.
> >
> > This design is your creation not the AEs.
> >
> Then I must be very, very brilliant, because
> the design is brilliant. And I must be very,
> very lucky that my figment fit the reality by
> pure chance - the reality of Giza. Wow!

I do not consider your technique to be at all brilliant.
You have effectively done nothing more than use a CAD programme and a series of cherry-picked inaccurate measurements (e.g. see above re the base of Khufu’s pyramid) to produce geometric patterns that are somehow meaningful to you (and perhaps a few other like-minded individuals).


> > > After all,
> > > a plan born of the sacred golden
> section
> > would be
> > > most suitable for Giza.
> >
> > Well, the AEs interest in the so-called
> ‘Golden
> > Section’ appears to have waned to the point
> of
> > non-existence by Amenemhet III’s time (c.
> > 1844-1797 B.C.) .
> > Have you any suggestions as to why this may
> have
> > been?
>
> Do you deny that the Golden Section works for
> the reconstruction most admirably? Stick to what
> is on the plate in front of you.

The manifestation of Phi in your flawed diagrams does not constitute evidence for the AEs knowing Phi.


> > I am not questioning the measurements taken
> by
> > Petrie, Cole, and various others.
> > I am questioning your interpretation of them
> – an
> > interpretation little, if at all, different
> from a
> > host of other geometry-based explanations for
> the
> > locations of the Giza Three.
>
> Okey, MJ. Let me have One more try at explaining
> why my reconstruction is superior to others.
> The secret method is comparison!
> Compare all reconstructions against the original!
> If and when you do, you will see that my recon
> succeeds, where other fail. Is this method too
> hard to grasp?

You use CAD, cherry-picked inaccurate measurements, etc., etc., and so on, and so forth, to create a geometric pattern that incorporates the ground plans and locations of the Giza Three, and provide not a single shred of evidence of intent.
And you wonder why I find your theory utterly absurd…



> > > the south to north distance was made
> > > precisely 1,732.05 cubits. Accordingly,
>
> > > other measurements then assume values
> > > that are remarkable in various ways.
> >
> > This measurement is dependent on which length
> of
> > the royal cubit one adopts, and is therefore
> > anything but precise.
> > You have selected a royal cubit length that
> gives
> > you your desired result.
>
> I have selected the cubit that works! Not in
> one result, but a bunch of results. That is
> typically human. "If it works - Use it!"

> > Petrie’s royal cubit of 20.632” or 534 mms,
> gives
> > a result of 1730.96 royal cubits.
> > We also need to consider the possibility
> that
> > Petrie’s measurement is not accurate.
> >
> Petrie's royal cubit does not work
> for the reconstruction of Petrie's layout.

Petrie’s royal cubit (suggested to him by the dimensions of the King’s Chamber inside Khufu’s pyramid) is hard evidence, but it doesn’t fit your theory, so you dismiss it in exchange for an otherwise unevidenced royal cubit length that does fit your theory.
Go on like this, Jiri, and you’ll give ‘Alternative Egyptology’ a bad name.


> > I fear you misunderstand me, Jiri.
> > The mathematics is usually sound; for
> example, the
> > square root of 3 multiplied by 1,000 is
> indeed
> > 1732.05, as you state.
> > What is not sound is the contention that the
> > distance in royal cubits between two certain
> > points on the Giza Plateau was intended to be
> the
> > square root of 3 multiplied by 1,000.
>
> It is sound, because it works. No other values
> for the cubit work for the reconstruction.
> 1732 cubits even does not work.
> The constructed value of the sq. root of 3
> does not work. All those round and precise
> values in the reconstruction suddenly go poof.

“The measurement exists, therefore it must be there intentionally” .
Sorry, Jiri, but I really cannot go along with that.

MJ