MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> That you have managed to create out of certain
> measurements selected from Petrie’s survey of the
> Giza Three a complex geometric pattern that makes
> some kind of sense to you is not disputed.

What bothers me? Your use of "a complex geometric pattern that makes
some kind of sense to you".

You are clearly saying that it (the pattern) does not "some kind of sense to you" make. Why should it make sense to you, as well? For one, "this some kind of something" does what it is supposed to do. It works for the given purpose, a purpose that precedes my own existence considerably, hence, this debate has none of my instigation. Second, my solution consists more of pure geometric theorems, and less of the follow-up (exact) transition into an accurate layout.
So, where along this simple path are you getting lost, MJ?

> What irks me, Jiri, is your persistent refusal to
> address the question of intent; you have yet to
> provide any separate evidence that this pattern
> was created intentionally by the designers of the
> Giza pyramids and temples.

Whenever you reconcile the obligatory appreciation for the eternal beauty of the geometry involved, and the fact that this is Giza, the issue of intent may become clearer. . Such a design certainly places the layout into the highest category of sophistication.
>
> > a) The original plan would have been made
> with
> > regular squares for the mantled pyramids,
> just
> > like Petries's plan.
> > b) If the objective were to build square
> pyramids,
> > based upon carefully monitoring the
> progress,
> > corrections may have been made to one of the
> sides
> > to preserve the total perimeter.
>
> I don’t find this unreasonable, but then I have no
> experience, direct or otherwise, of laying out
> squares on such a vast scale and on uneven
> terrain.
>
>
> > > I am merely attempting to explain to you
> (by
> > > reference to the actual – as far as can
> be
> > > determined - dimensions and their
> means)
> > that you
> > > are wrong in this.
> >
> > No, you are blindfolding yourself by denying
> me
> > the acknowledgement that with respect to the
> > average, provided by a reliable data source,
> the
> > reconstruction works with great accuracy.
>
> But your ‘reconstruction’ does not take into
> consideration Petrie’s actual maximum and minimum
> measurements, and this – along with your inability
> to provide any evidence of intent - is what causes
> me to dismiss your theory as nothing more than a
> figment of your imagination.
>
>
> > The measuring for both surveyors was not done
> > with cut and dry procedures, predetermined before
> the
> > actual field work. Both had to make choices,
> > and Cole chose to rely on different data. Petrie
> > did the survey his way, and Cole did likewise.
> > The fact that my accurate reconstruction fits
> > Petrie, and not Cole is a strong indicator that
> > Petrie did more than a great job, he did an ideal job.

> >
> > I've read some, and in no way noticed
> > anything that would make Cole better than Petrie. To
> > the contrary, I found Cole's method more prone
> > to mismanagement.
>
> I have here a copy of Petrie’s Pyramids and
> Temples of Giza (1883) and a copy of Cole’s
> Determination of the Exact Size and
> Orientation of the Great Pyramid of Gîza
> (1925)
> IMO, what you are claiming is nonsensical and
> grossly misleading.
> It shows, again IMO, that you either have not read
> or have read but have misunderstood Petrie’s
> detailed account of how he surveyed the base of
> Khufu’s pyramid, and that you have not read Cole’s
> survey report in full.

I have stated some reasons why I think Petrie's results are more accurate than Cole's, but you have stated no reasons why it should be the other way. Can you do that?

> > > be pedantic
> > > about it - because there is a difference
> > > of about 8 feet;
> > > it may well prove to be a case
> > > of this pyramid being built
> > > in a hurry and concern with
> > > accuracy to the degree seen in Khufu’s
> > > pyramid no longer existing.
> >
> > Eight feet? Forty-eight inches? What
> > about these measures by Petrie?
> > G3 inches = cubits
> > West 4153.9 = 201.462
> > South 4157.8 = 201.649
> > East 4149.2 = 201.232
> > North 4153.6 = 201.445 !
> > Average 4153.6 = 201.447 !
> >
> > Is it not strange that north represents the
> > average to a millimeter?
> > It could be a controlled event by the
> builders.
> > Anyhow, the average is what it is in my CAD
> > drawing. I do not depart from the data.
> >
> > The difference between east and west is 5
> inches
> > the difference between south & north is
> 4
> > inches
> > There isn't any room here for eight feet.
>
> Once again you show your ignorance of the subject
> matter in general and your propensity for
> cherry-picking data.
> According to Lehner (The Complete Pyramids 1997)
> the base of Menkaure’s pyramid is 335 x 343 feet.
> Yes, this is contrary to Petrie’s measurements
> (mean 346.13 x 346.13) but does this mean that
> Lehner is wrong?

It most certainly does, considering that his figures differ wildly from not only Petrie, but also Cole, who after all did come close to Petrie. It pits him alone against two widely acknowledged professionals. plus, Lehner was caught cheating in a drama of his "This Old Man Pyramid", if I have the title right. A mechanical shovel was used to move some blocks, but no mention of the fact was made in the flick.

I found that typical of the PyramiPhobia, which so torments some academicians they will sell their soul to the devil.

Jiri