Hans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> karenellen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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.
>
> >
> >
>
> The individual who wrote this book and drew lines
> every which way doesn't seem to be aware of the
> timelines of these locations construction - there
> are thousands of years of difference between many
> of them. Lots of dots and lines and no apparently
> convincing reason for them.
>
Yes, that would be the first reaction, however, we really don't know when any of these great monuments were built. We keep moving the goal post as new technology develops. The pyramids were for a while considered to be the oldest at about 7 kYO, but didn't start there. Now along comes Gobekli Tepe and the number is ~12kYO. This author is clear about the age issue: they are there and they align: end of story. In the book he does explain how he came about this pragmatic approach. Some folks, myself included have been testing his data. As you say,off hand there is no apparent reason, until you look closely and reproduce his measurements, as one should to prove or disprove the claims. He provides the data and the methodology used, simple straightforward survey geometry.