robin cook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> karenellen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'll give you a couple of more places which
> also align...
> > And of course all the places previously
> mentioned including Giza...
> > Previously we had found that Chephren which
> is located at about the 31degree meridian...
> > hence the Pyramids follow the same
> alignment...
> > The book claims; the geometric parameters...
>
> > triangulate the position of Giza on the
> globe...
>
> While threads may go off-topic, often in
> interesting ways, you diverted this one in an
> attempt to promulgate your fascination with
> 'global alignments', by suggesting that Giza (and
> specifically a Khafre-centred plan) can be related
> to your 'system'. Yet you still have not addressed
> the exceptionally vague and tenuous, and actually
> insane, basis of your claim. To recap, the
> author(s) of your book report :
>
> "We took the SPO Glyph -see below- tracing and
> rotated it along its NS axis to obtain a mirror
> image, followed by a rotation of about 75 degrees
> clockwise about its center".
>
> Until you can explain what this means your further
> statements will command very little attention or
> respect on this particular forum. While it is true
> that this thread was already dying, as evidenced
> by the comments and the overwhelming rejection of
> the notion of a trans-generational plan, your
> interlocution has put the final nail in my coffin,
> and we have now both been consigned to the
> 'Alternative Geometry' sub-forum which almost
> nobody reads (and rather makes me feel like Sydney
> Poitier in 'The Defiant Ones'). You might be
> better off posting in a newage group like
> Hancock's.
>
>
I believe I've been on topic throughout; the geometry of Giza, I thought. What is different is the proposed geometry, which is claimed to predict the location of the site. From a geographical perspective the claim is intriguing to me because it is NOTHING like the stuff you find out there. I've gone through the mathematical analysis and with CAD and so far it looks good. My reason for discussing this with anyone in this site is simply an attempt to overlay the historical over the geographical. I only 'know' college level history, so, I came here looking for experts; those with experience who have looked at alignments with the stars, the moon and astronomical cycles and who have accepted those alignments as factual almost unanimously. I, perhaps erroneously, expected someone would be interested in a novel, simple geometric approach which can be demonstrated with HS or low level College math and is earth bound. I know it is hard to look at things in a 'new' way and I am perhaps not the best person to explain someone else's work and I have the benefit of having spent the 20 bucks on the book, which you don't have.
Now if you are so kind as to point me to other forums that treat this subject from a more mathematical point of view, I'll appreciate that. Incidentally, how's Butler's proposition more worthy of analysis than this one?
I've made an analysis (maybe similar to Butler's) with parallelograms surrounding the pyramids and can show that the ratio of their square areas is roughly sequential: 1,2,3,4. If interested I can upload a graphic -tell me how to- and I will.