MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:

> Now, whether or not this royal cubit of
> 20.632”/524mms was used elsewhere by others is, I
> think, another matter.
> However, as I hold that the royal cubit is
> anthropometric in origin and the king was probably
> the anthropoid, I would expect, say, Khafre’s
> royal cubit to be slightly different to his
> father’s.
> Hmm. I wonder what would have happened if the
> king’s successor had arms like an orang-utan’s…

Perhaps, but they definitely had a better insight to an easier answer than yours.

The pyramid is 9068 inches wide according to Petrie's measures.
The King's chamber is 206+ inches wide and 412+ inches long.
That makes the pyramid base equal to 44 Kc widths or 22 Kc lengths.
Error is within +/- 1/100th of a King's chamber.
As you pointed out yesterday...if you compare the southern extension of the sub chamber its ratio with the KC 646/206+ = 3.14 Kc...AKA pi. Again...within 1/00th of a Kc.

That's how simple Giza is...it has nothing to do with one or two hundredth of an inch for the true measure. Perhaps you have never handled a chisel and hammer on granite or limestone. Or maybe you have never crawled 300 meters underground and cut to the precesion that they did...I don't know. But I will ask...how the heck can you guarantee a workman producing 1/100th "inch" accuracy throughout this site with only one standard of measure and that measure is sealed closed in one of the pyramids?
If a derived measure of +/- a fraction of an inch over an extended length is that critical to your calculations then you are defeating yourself before you even start.
Relax MJ...let your pencil point wear down a little...you'll enjoy it more.

Best.
Clive