DB: Only problem is THEY DO NOT LINE UP.
SC: This was not your initial point. Let us go a back a step here. You said:
DB: Recently it has been argued that [sic]Mark Lehner discovered a line that touched all three south east corners of the three Giza Pyramids.
SC: Notice how you were referring to a line claimed by Lehner "that touched all three south east corners of the three Giza pyramids" . When I presented to you what Lehner actually said which shows the complete misinformation of your statement, you do not retract your statement, you do not acknowledge your error. You simply gloss over and move on. So now your claim is that "...THEY DO NOT LINE UP."
Well Lehner knows that too but still it did not prevent him from inferring that this was the INTENT of the builders, to wit:
"A great SW-NE diagonal cuts the diagonal of Men-kau-re's first queen's pyramid, touches the SE corner of his pyramid, cuts the diagonal of his Mortuary Temple, passes the SE corner of the Khafre Pyramid court, cuts the diagonal of the fore-temple of Khafre's Mortuary Temple, touches the SE corner of Khufu's Pyramid, very nearly cuts the diagonal of his first queen's pyramid and ends in a large block of masonry built into the escarpment.“ - Mark Lehner. (Source).
SC: I rather suspect even if it was spot on perfect, you would still deny it. But it is not perfect and Lehner knew it as his statement above shows. And Lehner's reason as to why it is not a perfect line:
"These alignments are out by just about the amount that we would expect from methods of sighting and measuring using long cords across a kilometre of sloping plateau." -Mark Lehner, TCP, p.106
SC: There are no perfect squares on the Giza plateau. Nor are any of them set perfectly to the cardinal directions. That does not, however, prevent us - including you - from inferring what the intent was, does it? Why can we infer that intent? Because the error is so small in what is being observed that it is not unreasonable to infer what the builders were trying to do. You want perfection - well I hate to break it to you, Giza is not perfect. Not one single pyramid base is perfect.
DB: Scott do you honestly think that all the serious Giza researchers of the past would have missed this if they really lined up ?
SC: See above. I rather think Mark Lehner is a serious researcher and has access to more data about the plateau than you or I ever will.
DB: Observe. This is called beating them up with their own stick.
SC: You just beat yourself up. Hope it wasn't too painful for you.
DB: No offense but using Lehner as an authority on the geometry at Giza is just plain ludicrous.
SC: Yes, of course, Don. We are all to simply ignore all authorities that agree with what I say and disagree with what you say. Sheesh..............
Post Edited (19-Feb-12 15:54)