Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Ss
>
> Circumference of the circle with half base of G1
> (220 cubits x 3.14159) = the distance down from
> the north side of G1 to the north side of G2
>
> Then the circumference of the next pyramid (G2
> base 411.27 x 3.14159) equals the distance from
> the south side of G1 to the south side of G3
>
> Then the circumference of the next pyramid (G3
> base 200.50 x 3.14159) equals the distance from
> the south side of G2 to the south side of G3
>
> Chance of this happening randomly is, in my
> opinion, ZERO.
>
> So from now on the distances will be so easy to
> remember.
>
> Cheers
> Don Barone

circle of C1 = half G1 base = N side G1 to N side of G2
Circle of C2 = All G2 base = S side G1 to S side G3
circle of C3 = All G3 Base = S side G2 to S side G3

Wasn't the measurement of the bases questioned by evidentiary fans around here?
Irrelevant though to my point (and I think others' points)
Now that I understand what you said...
You certainly appear to have picked data from the superset to form a subset to support the end theory of intentional design...
See, it's curious you go from N side to N side and skip the middle
Then from S side to S side, and again skip the middle
Then S side to S side... and include the middle.

That's not a pattern. That's a collection of data points that exist within a larger set of data points - namely all possible relational measurements of the three points.

A pattern would show in transitioning from the first point to the second, then be applicabel to transition from the second point to the third.

Like this:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144

Get it? Hint: that's a famous progression of a pattern, if a bit obscure at first glance.

My favorite?

289, 37, 361, 39, 400, 41, 441, 43, 484

That one's pretty obscure, but it's a geometrical progression.

I don't see any pattern in your three statements though.

Am I blind?