Clive wrote:
I am using AutoCad that does all of the calculations as long as the data input is correct then the output is correct.
Since Petrie's measures were confirmed correct then what you see is what AutoCAD provides.

As I said in an earlier post if all Clive is doing is a construction based on Petrie's figures then we're probably going to agree within a few decimal points that his drawing reflects those figures accurately.

There's nothing wrong with that, however, Clive is not right when he says "Petrie's measures were confirmed correct" if he's suggesting that they accurately represent the Great Pyramid either now or as built. Petrie's measurements for the Descending Passage are wrong so the apparent co-incidence of measurements shown in Clive's drawing doesn't in fact exist.

Petrie couldn't measure the length of the Descending Passage accurately because of all the obstructions and he said as much. Later measurements when the Passage was clear show he got the length too short.

Petrie also can't be blamed for not knowing that he got the construction of how the Descending Passage joins the short Horizontal Passage wrong. It was buried under rubble when he was there. So even if you use his measurement for the length of the Descending Passage you'd have to adjust for the real point at which it joins the Horizontal Passage if you're going to claim that it's in any way important. That's just the reality of using figures from a survey done when some features were not visible and you can't get around that.

I've also said that for the sort of drawings and illustrations I'm doing this sort of accuracy isn't important but the claims other people make based on incorrect figures are.

I had a look at the point where the Descending Passage joins the short Horizontal Passage myself last year. Sadly the trunking and cables to either side and the central wooden flooring along with an accumulation of debris means that the cutting into the floor is again almost completely hidden.