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). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
gjb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DUNE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Well they are a fair bit away from Petries
> > determination of the Giza site 52" , 19" & 19"
> ,
> > again im kinda tied into Petries findings so
> for
> > your figures to work as intended then you would
> > have to give a good reason for why Petrie was
> so
> > far out from your suggestion.
> >
>
> > DPP
>
> I think you're really missing the point! What's so
> wrong with suggesting that the AEs made mistakes
> in their measurements, not Petrie? Petrie got it
> right, the Egyptians got it wrong. You've already
> agreed they could make mistakes, but now you're
> saying they couldn't have done so here! This is
> the argument of precision versus accuracy, and the
> recognition of potential error. Aren't we talking
> here about an error of 19 inches in almost three
> quarters of a mile?!! And you're not prepared to
> accept that this could happen? You're claiming to
> know that they could get measurements of this
> magnitude right to a fraction of an inch! How can
> you possibly know this? People are fallible. We
> all make mistakes at some time, but you're
> declaring that the AEs couldn't have. This all
> seems to me a very shaky foundation for an
> argument.
>

Yes your right i did miss your point, as always it has now sunk in, i blame my cheap wine.

So yea they could have made a final mistake , but if we reduce the size to your suggested parameters then every thing i have found goes down the tube, some will say that's where it belongs, i know who you are lol.

The reason i say "final mistake" is because as previously said they had already made a mistake in G1's positioning via the so called Trial Passage, can you imagine telling those guys who have laboured for a good month or two hacking out that passage only to be told its in the wrong place, and so when they started again i think they made sure that they now have it in the right place, it may also suggest that G2 was built before G1, and that their placement was based on the position of G2, the other possibility is that G1 would have ended up too close to the edge of the Mokattam formation.

Then again the same thing seems to have happen'd with G2, and again they went to great trouble in restarting the work a good 98 ft further South, so for me that indicates that they were working to a plan and that they got it right in the End.





> > It really does get complex, and i feel others
> who
> > see worth in my findings would be better equipt
> to
> > take it further as i feel ive reached my limit
> in
> > this venture.
>
> So, some thoughts for those future investigators.
>
> What’s nagging at me is that it’s probably
> acceptable to suggest that the AEs were aware of
> the square root of three, but how would they have
> measured out a line 1732.1 cubits long? It’s
> the 0.1 cubits that’s the first problem, either
> in inches of in digits (fingers). Decimal
> fractions of cubits would have to have been
> rounded to the nearest inch, or digit. Second,
> we’re not aware that they were using a decimal
> system, so why might they have multiplied sqrt3 by
> 1000?
>
I guess this 1732.1 cubit distance could be resovled by the size of the cubit being used,
One way to help the guys doing the measuring is to refine that square root ratio to 1732.08" and using their known cubit of 20.62", this means the sum is exact at 84 cubits, ie 84 x 20.62" = 1732.08"


> Also, wouldn’t we expect a relationship between
> the digit, palm, or remen, and the inch? At what
> point do the two systems coincide, particularly to
> people accustomed to counting in 28s or 64s?
>
> It’s just my view, but if sqrt3 is present in AE
> ritual and landscape architecture then wouldn’t
> it be sensible to look for ratio and proportion
> (integer lengths of known units) to represent the
> value rather than decimal notation?

I cant go along with units of measure based on peoples arms , hands, kneecaps, and any other parts of the body, for the use in building the pyramids, how on earth would you standardize the many different shapes of peoples body parts, male and female, young and old, what age ?, maybe there are cubits only for tall people , and then cubits for short people.
I can only assume G3 was based on a race of midgets , and then after the great famine of their time the famine cubit was made to fit the Ricket population .


I am interested in how they actually measured over long distances over uneven topography, im looking into how a long cut out beam of hardwood with an internal channel for water leveling could be used to transfer a 2 dimensional drawings measurements onto the uneven ground around Giza,


DPP

DPP

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 1651 DUNE 16-May-16 14:00
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 427 Harte 18-May-16 09:22
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 417 DUNE 18-May-16 10:33
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 393 Harte 19-May-16 09:33
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 545 DUNE 19-May-16 11:06
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 484 Sirfiroth 19-May-16 16:29
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 556 Harte 19-May-16 21:29
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 357 drew 24-May-16 06:09
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 384 DUNE 24-May-16 09:04
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 411 DUNE 24-May-16 14:47
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 384 DUNE 25-May-16 17:06
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 355 Harte 25-May-16 21:59
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 418 DUNE 26-May-16 12:42
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 425 drew 27-May-16 06:03
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 482 DUNE 27-May-16 09:44
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 353 drew 30-May-16 02:15
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 302 Sirfiroth 28-May-16 18:45
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 342 DUNE 29-May-16 07:42
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 400 Sirfiroth 29-May-16 17:39
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 236 drew 30-May-16 02:05
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 377 DUNE 30-May-16 07:53
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 447 drew 01-Jun-16 06:10
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 515 gjb 29-May-16 07:00
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 448 DUNE 29-May-16 11:15
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 399 Jon Ellison 29-May-16 18:42
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 371 DUNE 29-May-16 20:19
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 431 Jon Ellison 29-May-16 22:34
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 275 DUNE 30-May-16 07:40
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 347 Jon Ellison 30-May-16 08:24
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 477 gjb 29-May-16 21:43
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 370 DUNE 30-May-16 06:41
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 367 Sirfiroth 30-May-16 20:13
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 347 DUNE 31-May-16 14:33
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 338 Sirfiroth 31-May-16 15:10
Re: The Square Root of three at 1.7321 that Giza has encoded in its Plan 355 DUNE 31-May-16 17:13


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.