Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Sirfiroth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great work, but the problem is according to the
> original idea for saying it was built in situ is
> getting the sarcophagus past the ascending
> descending passageway junction. Now I could be
> wrong, but mathematically the sarcophagus, being
> 90 inches in length, won't make the transition
> from descending to ascending passageway due to
> height and angled restrictions in the passageways.
Hi, Thanks for the comment.
According to M&R it'll just make it on account of the radiused corners.
The box in my drawing is a few cm's longer and taller than the real thing. So this is pretty much the largest sized box that can negotiate the bend.
I'm relying totally on the accuracy of the M&R drawings.

-------------------------------------------------------
> Great work, but the problem is according to the
> original idea for saying it was built in situ is
> getting the sarcophagus past the ascending
> descending passageway junction. Now I could be
> wrong, but mathematically the sarcophagus, being
> 90 inches in length, won't make the transition
> from descending to ascending passageway due to
> height and angled restrictions in the passageways.
Hi, Thanks for the comment.
According to M&R it'll just make it on account of the radiused corners.
The box in my drawing is a few cm's longer and taller than the real thing. So this is pretty much the largest sized box that can negotiate the bend.
I'm relying totally on the accuracy of the M&R drawings.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.