This is the largest of the three with the other two apparently identical. Why this one differs is anyone's guess I suppose.

Size of b and c bases are 102.5 feet

"c"'s base is 145.75 ( I think. Can't tell for sure if it is a 3 or a 5 in the 145 feet 9 inches)

Always looking for ratios and reason I divided 145.75 by 102.5 and got: 1.422 and reversed yields 0.70326 - Now since almost everywhere we have looked we have found a 0.7 to 1 ratio doing so here gives us:

102.5 = 0.7

1.0 would equal 146 feet 5 inches or 146.42

If we allow 145.75 as being correct but keep the same ratio we get:

145.75 = 1
0.7 = 145.75 x 0.7
= 102.025

Since we decided to probably accept 59 and 2/3rds cubits for the base on the first two I think what is correct here is 102.5 and 146.42.

Could Perring be off by 146.42 - 145.75 = 0.67 or 8 inches ? I don't know but my guess from all other measurements I have seen would indicate that these pyramids are in the ratio of 0.7 to 1 and surprisingly the same ratio as we found for The Sakkara Ostracon.

The base then becomes about 85.22 cubits

The "former" height is 93.25 feet or 1119 inches or about 54.273 cubits. Hmmm ... ? Wonder if 55 cubits was intended and built ?

So we get 1/2 base times height and we get 42.61 / 54.723 = 52.09 degrees

However we have a second base mentioned and that is 138 feet 0 inches which would give us 80.31 cubits. Was 80 or 85 meant ? I am not sure until we get a second opinion n the measurements. The present height is 83.333 feet or 1000 inches (precisely !) or 48.5 cubits

So here we get 40 / 48.5 = 50.49 degrees

if we use 40.155 / 48.5 = 50.377 degrees

These measurements just don't seem to be telling the story they should so we will have to get a second set of data.

Regards
Don Barone




"There is nothing as impenetrable as a closed mind"
and ..." if everything is a coincidence what is the point of studying or measuring or analyzing anything ?" db