> Hey Jon. I have to assume that this 3D info is
> entirely extrapolated from the visible seams
> within the passage, which means the only component
> of these diagrams that we know for certain is the
> contours of the inner passage of them. I'm very
> curious how you got the depth and angle of plan
> that descends into the depth of the walls past the
> visible seams of the passage. The irregularity
> of the seams certainly tells a tale of complex
> polygonal assembly to be sure, but I just wanted
> to understand how you got the rest of the shape.
> I'm literally role playing in my mind during the
> moment I might be explaining these shapes to an
> Egyptologist. Is there some broken spots or gaps
> that reveal the depth of the stones at some place?
> Because if I'm correct in assuming there is some
> presumption in your design representation, it
> tells me that its highly likely that there is
> probably much more irregularity on the outer
> dimension of the stones we can't even see, and
> your representations are a presumption of the
> simplest possible dimension, (which, to make the
> point, is by far good enough to be sure).
Hi Open Mind.
You are correct, the dimensions of the block that are buried in masonry are perpendicular projections outward from the visible, inner passageway block seams.
All previous two dimensional drawings such as M&R follow this protocol.
The intention is to not make the block more complex than is necessary.
The intention is not to make the block larger than is necessary.
Drilling was carried out in the Horizontal Passage. I didn't want to exceed that depth dimension.
So to sum up, I've kept it as small and simple as possible as dictated by the inner, visible block lines.
If the block is indeed larger and more complex, well that's a whole new ballgame!
I prefer to err on the conservative side for now, and work with known data.
The exercise not only demonstrates the complexity of designing and manufacturing this block, it also raises questions about the design and manufacture of the adjacent and inter-fitting blocks.
I'm sure you understand.
Some other points that you may like to consider.
The gradual transformation from highly complex inter-fitting blocks at the lower end of the passage, mostly all encompassing girdle stones, up to regular, simple, cuboid block work at the upper end. Two totally different methods.
The mysterious "pointer stones" are obviously an important feature, two on the west side, one on the east.
Staggered east to west.
Also consider the five side jointed "penta-blocks" that the "pointer" stones are located in.
Everything is pointing to this thing not actually being primarily a passage or conduit as such, but a series of annular rectangles of various dimensions and angles.
The "Passage" possibly being an artefact of the designed function...
Simplistic analogy.. The "passage" inside a hollow tubular strut.
Kinda like us crawling around inside a giant tubular framed chair trying to figure out what it's all about.
At this time I may have one correlation that I don't want to publish right now.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 19-Jan-17 00:53 by Jon Ellison.