Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world.
>>First of , I repeat that your 48 degrees angle is arbitrary, you don't explain why you use it. It actually is a reverse engineered angle base on pre-knowledge of the dimensions of G2 and G3. So the real test of whether it has any value is how well it does , determining the size of G1. It fails there. On the other hand this theory does not prove or agree with a rectangular G3. All it does is compute it's diagonal. The architects could have taken this diagonal and built a cone with this diameter for all we care. The Lehner G3 base diagonal angles are nowhere near 42 / 48 degrees. If the architects had actually came up with this theory , then they would have taken the diagonal - let's say for the sake of arguing - Lehner's 146.24 meters, and come up with sides of 108.68 by 97.85 meters. But they didn't. According to Lehner the sides are 104.6 by 102.2 meters. Same diagonal. No 48 degree angle.
Now regarding Lehner's survey. He has done a very sloppy job when it comes to accuracy and consistency of survey data in his book. You just cannot trust what he says. This in contrast to Petrie's in depth and very professional survey.
Its possible no amount of straight/line of sight vectors will work for Giza plateau layout,
its possible something in the direction of the Fibonnaci sequence/Sacred Geomoetry/Golden Means spiral......... forwards is more accurate.
the work unfolding here: