> SC: With respect, but Don Barone has done nothing of the sort
> and he is not the great arbiter of the work Gary and I present.
> And Don need not have concerned himself so since in our own
> presentation we have conceded that we could only reach an
> accuracy match percentage of a little over 98% for G2-G3 ratio.
> Accurate enough for most statisticians to be regarded as
> meaningful and worthy of publishing but not so to the pixel
> perfectionists. A pixel here, a pixel there and we could
> achieve 100% match.
This plan fails big time. Here is the math. You start out with the visual distance between Alnitak - Alnilam , representing the distance between the center bases of Khufu and Kafre pyramids respectively. The only measure of this is through Petrie's survey. It is 486.877 meters.
You then double it , and bring a line to the Mintaka position. But the visual distance between Mintaka and Alnilam as seen 2550 BC is larger. Using astronomy software - see also Christopher F. Ash and R. Avry Wilson article in Bauval's site we can compute the Orion center base ratio. This is 0.9781. Therefore to compute the ground equivalent of G2-G3 we have to divide by this number. We thus have a length of 497.778 meters. The triangle you created has one angle of (180-172.886) = 7.114 degrees. All we have to do is use trigonometry to compute the opposite side to this angle. The other ones have the above lengths. The outcome is 62.051 meters. You then go on to double this or 124.102 meters. Since this is the diagonal we divide by 2^(1/2) = 1.4142 and finally find the length of the Menkaure side. It is 87.753 meters. Wow, a 34 cubits error outcome.
One can easily see this plan is useless. It does not explain how the pyramids were designed.
And it is not as you say that the architects did not know the data. Apart from everything else, then encompassed the exact relative distance ratio into the pyramid height ratio (G1/G2 = 280/274).
> And I rather suspect that even if we HAD
> achieved 100% for G2-G3 ratio, it would do little to convince
> you of our argument since you had already decided even before
> seeing any of this that we were wrong and that your own
> cherished theory is correct.
No, I think there are interesting aspects of your work , and things that are correct and need expanding - or correcting. But this site plan explanation is totally useless.