Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
MJ:
> > Ignoring Smyth, the Edgar brothers, Rutherford,
> > Cole, M & R, Dormion et al virtually
> > guarantees a failed Pyramid hypothesis/theory.

Clive:
> It's not ignoring them...it's asking for all
> measures to be taken from the same reference
> point.

If you took the trouble to read fully the original source material, then you would find that what differences there are between one set of measurements and another (I have in mind Smyth, Petrie and John and Morton Edgar) are usually accounted for by the use of a chain instead of a rod, continuous measure against accumulative measures, and so on.
Then you have to take into consideration that in the cases of Smyth, Petrie and the Edgar brothers measurements were taken in candlelight and often in appalling working conditions.
Petrie explains why he disagrees with Smyth, and the Edgar brothers explain why they disagree with Petrie.
Considering all this, I consider it mildly surprising that the three sets of measurements are as close to one another as they are.


> Smyth measure to the closest foot in some
> cases...inches in others.

Please qualify this.


> Tolerance of possible error is omitted by most.

Please qualify this.


> M&R wrote a book regarding the GP but never
> set a ruler to the structure.

This is quite simply untrue.


> So many factors...so many details to be considered
> before selecting one measure over another.

Totally misleading.


> Petrie refers to others where difficulty of
> measure is involved (Grand Gallery).Secondary
> passage leading to the descending passage.

To be precise, Petrie deferred to Smyth when it came to the height of the Grand Gallery.
By “Secondary passage” I presume you mean the Well Shaft.
Petrie did not consider the dimensions of the Well Shaft to be of any real importance.
It was not a case of him not measuring it because of “difficulty of measure”.


> Guaranteed...if you find four or five of the best
> survayors on this planet and ask them to measure
> the distances in the passages we have discussed
> over the past several days then I guarantee there
> will not be one set the same as another.
> Reason...?
> There are physically too many variables in the
> structure to pin large distances down to the inch
> of accuracy.

I doubt this.
I explained briefly above the main causes of the disparities between the sets of measurements published by Smyth, Petrie and Morton Edgar.
Surely surveyors today would agree on points of reference, and certainly they would be equipped with modern lighting equipment, etc., and their working conditions will be vastly improved on what their late 1800s and early 1900s predecessors had to contend with.
They may throw up minor differences compared to Smyth, Petrie and Edgar, but I seriously doubt that there would be much in the differences between themselves.
Whether or not present day surveying equipment is superior to what Smyth, Petrie and Edgar used is something I am not qualified to comment on.

MJ

We can't all be right, but we could all be wrong ...