Hi Don,

I could be wrong, It is possible, but first of all I believe Petrie, Perrin and Donner are not that inept as to miss the angle by 2 degrees. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the article Anthony references that confirms the angles change in the text books of the archeological community.

It reads:
I have quoted this 45° angle in several contexts but I always get challenged to provide more information. One correspondent tells me that the new measurements were first published in:

MDAIK = Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (DAIK) (Mainz/Cairo/Berlin/Wiesbaden)

But I have not been able to confirm this. The situation is further complicated by the information in Verner's book which in a list of all the Pyramids (page 462) quotes the 45° angle but gives the dimensions as 104m x 220m which gives 43° 40' if my maths are correct.

Further:
Jon B. was looking for confirmation. The question is did he find it?

Jon B. wrote: I'm assuming that this information has been published by Stadelmann but probably in German. Has anybody seen these 'new' figures and can quote them and the reference? ... As far as I know Stadelmann's new height for the Red is 110m (he says the previous height measurement was an error and merely copied by later writers) which would give the 'new' angle of 45°. It is this figure I'm trying to confirm and get some reference for.

I could be wrong, but I see nothing in what is written in what is presented to confirm Stadelmann's' new height for the Red Pyramid, do you? For something of this magnitude there should be some publication in English to confirm Stadelmann's findings. After all without confirmation the theory of a 45° angle is only hearsay. Now if Anthony would be kind enough to provide the information is English from an acceptable source then he might have a valid argument, as it is only hearsay without confirmation.