Ogy: First of, I repeat that your 48 degrees angle is arbitrary, you don't explain why you use it.
SC: You are refering here to line L1 in the Giza-Orion Geostellar Fingerprint (GSF). It is not arbitrary since it has a direct relationship to the proportions of G3. If line L1 were a t a different azimuth then G3 would have had different proportions, as would G1 and G2. G3 proportions are intrinsically linked to line L1 and line L2.
Ogy: 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.
SC: And I completely disagree and defer to the outcome as observed here. And what's so wrong in reverse-engineering? People do it on this site all the time.
Ogy: 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.
SC: We can only deal in terms of what they did. They created a rectangle for G3.
Ogy: The Lehner G3 base diagonal angles are nowhere near 42 / 48 degrees.
SC: I never said they were.
Ogy: 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.
SC: As I said - the 48 degree angle is line L1, not line L2.
Ogy: 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.
SC: That is but your opinion. Lehner and the GPMP team have never published the actual survey data - only the hi-res GPMP drawing based on the survey data. That darwing shows G3 as a slight rectangle. Lehner and the GPMP team would have had access to the most modern equipment of the day (when the survey was made). Why do you consider modern surveying techniques would be inferior to Petrie's Victorian techniques?