MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > The manifestation of Phi in your flawed
> diagrams
> > > does not constitute evidence for the AEs
> knowing
> > > Phi.
> >
> > The diagrams are in no way flawed. You assume
> so, but cannot test it in any way, for lack of CAD
> or just mathematical expertise. In other words,
> you are far below the level of the Egyptian
> designers in this domain.
>
> Your theory – in particular the degree of accuracy
> you claim for it, and argue puts it ahead of all
> other such theories - can be tested very easily by
> checking its raw data.
> You take the length of the sides of Khufu’s
> pyramid to be 9,068.8 inches, whereas the mean
> lengths of the sides at the base range from
> 9065.1” to 9073”.
> The average length of the sides of Khafre’s
> pyramid roughly speaking varies from 8459” to
> 8478” – it depends on who’s measurements you read.
>
> Just to confound thing’s further, there is
> evidence that Khafre’s pyramid was originally
> intended to be larger and stand farther north.
> The base of Menkaure’s pyramid is, as you probably
> know, not square (a difference of about 96”) and,
> as with Khafre’s pyramid, measures of the
> individual sides vary from authority to
> authority.
> The length of the royal cubit used in the planning
> and building of these structures might or might
> not have varied from building to building.
> A difference of 0.04” (1mm) in the length of the
> royal cubit used to measure a distance of
> (topically) 1732.05rcs amounts to plus or minus
> 68”.
> As anybody with a knowledge of the Giza necropolis
> can tell you, these actual and potential
> differences of up to tens of inches (possibly
> more) occur all over the site.
> Like it or not, Jiri, your claim of near perfect
> accuracy is quite simply unfounded, and
> misleading.

Basically, you are listing variety of reasons here, why not to trust Petrie's plan of Giza with averaged out sides, why one ought to remain skeptical. Of course, I understand you, but I don't share your doubts.
Existence of obstacles to any goal, does not mean they cannot be overcome. What if Petrie was lucky in overcoming the obstacles in his way? You have to be good to be lucky, and we know that Petrie was good. He chose the right methods, had more respect for the planners and builders, and got more accurate results than later comers with newer technology, whose results seem to fluctuate, nevertheless.
It is natural to assume that there was an original plan, in which the pyramid bases were square. Do you share this assumption? - In one of your older posts, you identified yourself with a group of local posters searching for the blueprint of Giza. That would include the the Giza Three, so the answer is obvious. So, if you presume that there was a plan, how do you recognize this plan, among the throng once it sees daylight?
Well, a lot depends on the beholder. May I ask you a question, MJ? Have you found your plan of the Giza layout? I would love to peruse it.
1)
Do you consider a looser adherence to a given set of measurements a plus, or minus, or both, as opposed to total accuracy? How about a procedure like mine with only two mentionable divergences from a given set of measurements (Petrie set), of which the greatest is the position of the south-western corner of G3, at 1.18 inches too far west, and the sides of G2, which are all 4 millimeters inwards? Divergences measured for the rest hit dead center of Petrie's fault tolerance. The divergence of 4 mms is in general, only a single mm out of that zone. So, arguably the single fault of the recon is the 1.18 inches figure. How about the fact that the figure represents greatest accuracy for other reconstructions? Is that not the norm for throwing darts at the square we play with (907.113 x 907.113 meters)? There is that 113, again. It's like seeing a familiar face, a number I know well from 14,000 years ago. Does such unprecedented adherence to a given set of measurements make it somehow worse? Too good to be true?
2)
What intellectual level do you expect from the ancient designers? Are you prepared to soar to unexpected heights? Are you prepared to face the ancient scientist? Or are you of the opposite disposition?

Why I think that I know, I am right.

Reason # 1 - recognition of the familiar
For instance I knew the 13-step pentagram construction from Nazca. It happens to be the backbone of Giza's noble star system. Recognition of the fact cements my confidence in being right. By being born of this system, the layout of the three great pyramids takes on the shiny mantle of sacredness. I suggest, you take the word for this from Plato, and Pythagoras, as both had a lot to say, or show about it, after acquiring their higher education in Egypt, or more specifically, from Egyptian priests in Egyptian temples.
How sacred and intelligent do you expect the layout of Giza to be? Based on a few 'stupid 3-4-5 triangles, and 'slightly' out of whack? The pentagram mathematics, the Section, has been considered special since prehistory, and it dominates Giza just, as one ought to expect.
I also expected the decimal system in evidence, after experiencing the geometric sophistication of Giza (via the Three), since I have a very good example of a 14,000 years old decimal puzzle from the site of La Marche. [vejprty.com]

The Game of Quotes

At the first glance, the thirteen whole numbers - the distances between points of the Frame in (half) millimeters - are no big deal. Yet, if our goal were to show off to keen observers one's advanced knowledge of decimal numbers, Pi, Phi, and Equinoctial Precession, then these numbers would be the ideal choices, presented in their ideal order.
The Stone-Age designers made the search for secrets in the Frame into a bona-fide logical game of numbers. As such it also has set rules. Among the objectives - to quote Pi, and Phi, and rates of Equinoctial Precession as many times as possible, and as far as the following:

Pi = 3.141592653589793238.. Eighteen decimals
Phi = 1.6180339887.. Ten decimals
Equinoctial Precession - rates match today's state of art measurements.

This set of only thirteen whole numbers ranging from 16 to 175 accomplishes all that. Clearly, its designers had to be highly sophisticated, and in possession of astronomical instruments at least equal to what we have now. This insight leads to the conclusion that the Stone-Age site of La Marche had been tampered with, or even entirely staged fourteen millenia ago, in order to provide medium for camouflaged science-art.
I believe that the Frame holds the universal patent on intensity in this type of communication regarding the two most fundamental mathematical ratios - Pi, and Phi. It also holds the global patent on Equinoctial Precession riddles. No other set of thirteen whole numbers can rival the Frame in suitability for this task, because it exploits the best available opportunities. Could this be by chance? What odds would have to be overcome?
There is a staggering quantity of possible combinations of thirteen whole numbers in the range from about 10 to about 180, with total falling somewhere between 1,000 and 1,300. Since each number can be drawn more than once, and the order matters as well, the stupendous odds against worsen into the one out of octillions.
Yes, OCTILLIONS. The Frame is the best solution for the above stated objectives among octillions of competing combinations possible. Anyone not in agreement, is invited to provide a competing solution. Another good manner of getting some respect is trying to improve the Frame itself. It seems that any changes whatsoever drastically reduce its functionality. The same applies to changing the arrangement of Frame segments.
I have no doubts about it, I have witnessed the Stone Age scientist stamping La Marche, Nazca, and Giza with the 13-step star system(s). Imagine what power is needed for such feat. In the case of Nazca and La Marche, this system is in turn secondary to the Cone & Square system, from which the respective designs descend, although in the Nazca case, the 13-step star represents the culmination, as I see it, because it feeds back directly to La Marche. To tell you the truth, I would not be surprised, should this C&S system become evident at Giza, in some ingenious way. A well dimensioned plan of Giza is needed.

Reason # 2 - accuracy

When throwing a bucketful of geometric darts at Giza, you are trying to score simultaneous direct hits upon infinitely thin lines of the underlying plan from a height in excess of 900 meters. Reconciliation of this vast scope of operations with the fact that all but two hits land between 1/3 to 1/87 millimeter away from the target is only possible without recourse to a miracle, if one supposes that this miracle is staged. I.e., that was the plan.
Aware of such historical anomalies with untold potential, it is not surprising that I champion the cause of Lost Science, whoever it may have belonged to. What would your guess be?
At any rate, my claim of near perfect accuracy is in no way misleading. It is specified to be so only in relation to Petrie's measurements, not to how those came to be.
This should pretty well answer the rest of your post as well, but let's have a look.

> Another way of testing your theory is to compare
> its ‘conclusions’ to what is currently known about
> the culture that allegedly created it.
> This is something you need to do for yourself.
> I am confident that eventually you will find the
> two to be incompatible.

Irrelevant to a self sustained data.

> > An ingenious extensive systematic design like
> the Giza plan, whose material implementation fits
> > like a Swiss clock, is always a strong
> indication of intent, if not proof. In my opinion,
> however, it
> > is proof, especially in conjunction with
> related phenomena occurring as well. This is
> exactly the
> > case with Giza.
>
> But your plan does not fit the actual site as
> accurately as you claim.
> The best one can say for your theory on this front
> is that it’s fairly close and therefore about on
> par with the patterns churned out by others.

Completely untrue, and you know it.

> > > > 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.
>
> For the reasons I give above, alone, your theory
> is not superior to others, nor does it succeed
> where others fail.
>
It certainly succeeds, where others failed in reconstructing Petrie's plan from just an idea.

> > Is this method too hard to grasp?


> > > As I have explained above, your theory
> is not superior to others.
> > > You use CAD, cherry-picked inaccurate
> > > measurements, etc., etc., and so on, and
> so forth,
> >
> > Give an example of cherry picked inaccurate
> measurement.
>
> Choose any from those few I gave above – it’ll do
> for starters.

If accepting Petrie's data set means cherry picking, then I love cherries.

> > to create a geometric pattern that
> incorporates
> > > the ground plans and locations of the
> Giza Three,
>
> > Now we are making progress. You have finally
> admitted that
> > THERE IS A GEOMETRIC PATTERN INCORPORATING
> > THE GROUND PLANS AND LOCATIONS OF GIZA THREE
> !!!!!
>
> I hate to disillusion you but that was in
> reference to your theory.
> Presently I do not believe there to be such a plan
> at Giza.
>
Oh, I see, now you don't believe in any plan, despite the eexistence of one.

> > > and provide not a single shred of
> evidence of
> > > intent.
> >
> > Lots of evidence.
>
> Lines drawn from mostly imaginary points to mostly
> imaginary points do not constitute evidence.

I think you underestimate the reality of imaginary points in math.

> > > And you wonder why I find your theory
> utterly
> > > absurd…
> >
> > It is logical, not absurd. Absurd is your
> reaction.
>
> I suppose It has a certain logic as far as modern
> mathematics is concerned.
> Not at all sure it would be logical to a 4th Dyn.
> Egyptian.
>
It would be logical to a Stone Age La Marchian.


> > Petrie's cubit derived from the KC works
> > therein, but it does not work for Giza. If
> > Petrie were still alive, he might have
> > take that into account in contrast to you.
>
> As I mentioned above, it is not known whether or
> not the royal cubit’s length varied from building
> to building.
>
Obviously, I found the perfect cubit for the Giza layout.

> > > Go on like this, Jiri, and you’ll give
> > > ‘Alternative Egyptology’ a bad name.
> >
> > Well, it is not alternative Egyptology by any
> means. It is pure science.
> > Alternative Egyptology is what you do,
> because you limit your data input,
> > discriminating against the inconvenient.
>
> I suggest you read my posts in the thread on
> Temple’s book about Anubis and the Sphinx.
>
>
> > > “The measurement exists, therefore it
> must be
> > > there intentionally” .
> > > Sorry, Jiri, but I really cannot go
> along with
> > > that.
> >
> > What measurement? I know of no such singular
>
> > measurement. I know only of a entire set of
> > measurements, whose non-random character has
> > intent written all over. These measurements
> > should and would not exist, if they were not
>
> > intentional.
>
> As Lobo, Jammer, Warren, and others have pointed
> out to you, such measurements can exist or occur
> entirely unintentionally.

If so, then why have none occurred since 1883 until my set of measurements?

Jiri Mruzek

> MJ
>
>