RAW: It's not my 'view'. Actual aerial
> photographic pictures are not open to personal
> perspective. A quick review of Google Earth (see
> timeline imagery for better angles) or the
> internet will supply you with what you need to
> test what I've pointed out.
> Google Earth? With the well-known and documented
> 'errors' in their stitching together of multiple
> images? Seriously?
Yes. And GE has rare instances of bad stitching. Giza is pretty good though. I suggest you review what I wrote as well about 'timeline' images. Barring that, you could follow my secondary direction: the internet.
> I didn't ask you to present a dubious Google Earth
> satellite picture. I asked you to present a
> plan drawing - one that you are happy with
> the accuracy of. Present that to me, Avry, and I
> will show you that the exact same geometric
> relationship I present in my earlier images in
> this thread can be reproduced on your chosen plan
> And after I have done that, Avry, I will then
> present to you WHY this geometric relationship
> exists and the simple mathematics that create it.
> If what you say (above) is true (i.e. that the
> plan drawing I have used is not accurate) then I
> should not be able to reproduce this geometric
> relationship on your favoured (accurate) plan
> drawing. So, let's have your favoured (accurate)
> Gizamid plan drawing.
> The floor is yours.
Thanks. I did not say your plan drawing was wrong. What you represent on it is.
Didn't figure out the geometry error, now did you? I thought the GEM reference would have made it obvious. Or are you even bothering to consider reviewing your diagram?
I'll add another hint: the base of Menk/\ is not equal to ... ?
Get it now?