robin cook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > -- Byrd
> > Moderator, Hall of Ma'at
>
> Oh dear, I seem to have ruffled your feathers
> again.
>
> Byrd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The big weaknesses are:
> > * how do we know they would have known what
> "sea
> > level" was?
> > * why would they feel "sea level" was useful
> or
> > significant?
>
> Can we please put such speculations to the side,
> at least for the moment. Assume that they did and
> address the central argument - that the 3 large
> pyramids were set out rationally with respect to
> each other.
>
> > * How does this explain the placement of the
> > causeways?
> > * how do the valley temple and the mortuary
> temple
> > relate to these designs?
> > * why isn't the cult pyramid of Khufu
> included?
> > * The queens pyramids were put up at around
> the
> > same time. Why aren't they part of this
> design
> > and these proportions?
> > * how does this explain the placing of the
> walls?
>
> I have already told you that Butler attempted to
> include such elements for which good data is
> available in his proposition, and gave as an
> example the proportioning of pyramid chambers. He
> also discusses the placement of Khafre's causeway
> - I am beginning to suspect that you haven't
> actually read his book? Your posts are filled with
> 'how could they have known/done this or that?'.
> Had we more data we might begin to answer such
> questions.
>
> So let's stop flirting around the subject. However
> arrived at, and whatever its deeper significance
> might be, Butler discovered that a datum 114
> cubits below Khufu base produces a sensible
> explanation for the 3 main pyramid dimensions and
> locations at Giza. Are you so incurious as not to
> wonder why particular dimensions were chosen? Or
> are you simply fatigued by the plethora of
> 'overall plans' which have appeared (and which I
> would agree have not been particularly
> convincing), and have assumed that Butler's
> proposition is more of the same?
>
> You will I hope agree that Petrie was a good
> surveyor and his figures are to be trusted? Based
> on his survey (as well as later work by
> Gantenbrink) it is now blindingly obvious that the
> interior design of Khufu was very carefully, and
> subtly, planned on the themes 7/11 and 99/70.
> Other pyramids too reveal definite numerical
> intention in their planning (viz. recent
> discussions on Dashur). These facts may be
> trivialised by those with other agendas, but
> cannot be ignored by any serious pyramid scholar.
> The mathematical brilliance of Khufu's architect,
> and the meticulousness with which his pyramid was
> constructed, does not sit well with the apparently
> prevailing view on this forum - perhaps best
> expressed so eloquently by Hans :'I see no 'plan'
> and that it grew from Pharaoh to Pharaoh then
> finally a Pharaoh said, nah I'll put my tomb way
> over there instead.' But is it really so much a
> stretch to imagine that this architect had an even
> greater vision encompassing the whole of the Giza
> plateau?
> It seems that for a relatively brief period at the
> beginning of the IVth dynasty mathematician
> priests held sway and promoted a kind of numerical
> theology. The last pyramid complex at Giza,
> Menkaure, was clearly finished off in a hurry,
> suggesting diminishing enthusiam for Khufu's
> 'master plan'. We can only guess what theological
> debates took place that led eventually to the
> promotion of Osiris, beyond the fact that pyramids
> got smaller.
> But enough of such vapid speculation. Let us
> address the data, the numbers, and decide if they
> really can be dismissed as coincidence.
>Hello, I am Karenellen I have not written before on this topic. I'm not an archaeologist or Egyptologist; I'm just interested in science, geography, cartography and archaeology in general.
Now, if I may, let me throw a wrench into the works which I think fits the issues raised in the above comment. I came across this website earthsunexposure.com; it shows a graphic layout of the pyramids which drew my attention. The site is about a book which provides a geometric analysis of every major site on the planet. This graphic and the one following are explained on the third page of the site. Together they provide a glimpse of what appears to be a completely new explanation for the location, layout and the sizes for the three pyramids, Chephren's causeway and the Sphinx; totally unexpected. Looking at the graphic it seems that the plain geometry analysis given in the last comment by Robin Cook fits part of the analysis given there: Khafre or Chephren appears to be the central point for the design. The blurbs accompanying the graphics claim a relationship between the layout and ridges in the Pacific Ocean. In the book the explanation is geometric and detailed; to me the claims appear to be well documented. Whichever way the pyramids layout is analysed there is no way the architect's technological accomplishment can be ignored.I agree coincidence does not fit in any of it.