Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 17, 2024, 9:13 pm UTC    
tim
November 13, 2009 07:10AM
Dave Lightbody wrote,
> Go easy on the great man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- His work was fantastic. That is why it is so surprising/interesting to find an error.

The other error in the general summary is the beginning of ascending passage height measure of 179.9".(It should be 172.9")

Unfortunately John Romer uses this measure in his book " The Great Pyramid."
calling it 8.73 cubits.

e.g. Page 341.

"For this provides a size for the grid offset measurement of 8.73 c, which once again is well within the existing parameters in the pyramid, and in fact is identical to the dimension of the grid offset at the prism point."
( His prism point is the beginning of the ascending passage. )
Subject Author Posted

Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jon_B November 02, 2009 02:32PM

an error in Petrie?

Warwick L Nixon November 02, 2009 04:56PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 02, 2009 05:38PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

tim November 13, 2009 06:05AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Dave Lightbody November 13, 2009 06:34AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

tim November 13, 2009 07:10AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Don Barone November 13, 2009 11:34AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 13, 2009 12:34PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Don Barone November 13, 2009 01:02PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jon_B November 13, 2009 11:14AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Clive November 02, 2009 07:40PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

RLH November 02, 2009 08:01PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Clive November 02, 2009 09:08PM

Woops...!

Clive November 03, 2009 12:14AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 03, 2009 07:50AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Clive November 03, 2009 07:40PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jon_B November 04, 2009 12:19PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Don Barone November 04, 2009 12:43PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jon_B November 04, 2009 04:26PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Don Barone November 04, 2009 04:29PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Clive November 04, 2009 05:36PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 04, 2009 07:48PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Clive November 06, 2009 12:17AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jon_B November 06, 2009 11:45AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 06, 2009 03:07PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 06, 2009 03:00PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jim Alison November 09, 2009 11:09PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login