> 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.
But the architects did not know the proportions of G3 in regards to G1 or G2, or the proportions of it's base sides(rectangle). That's what they were out to determine. They had to determine it using geometry. Bringing equidistant lines. Bringing perpendicular lines etc. Also there is not reason to depict the stars with an angle - azimuth. Since no real star azimuth was used - as stated before, all one has to do to make things simple , is as Don did , to draw G1, G2 on a horizontal line. Then G3 would be raised at a certain angle. So what made them chose the 42/48 degrees plan? I repeat, the bases did not exist, that was what they wanted to determine using geometry. If they used a 45/45 degrees scheme this would make sense. If they drew parallel lines this would also make sense. So why the 42/48 degs? I am aware that it works out for G2 G3 but how did they think of it.
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
> And what's so wrong in reverse-engineering? People do it on
> this site all the time.
First of all, I don't have to look at this diagram. You yourself - in the presentation state the large G1 error. So I rest my case. Now as to reverse engineering , its a good thing , if we can come up with a plausible - non arbitrary explanation that makes sense. In my theory this is the case. No fudging just computing relevant astronomic data. So the problem is not that you reverse engineered. It is that you cannot explain why they used a 42/48 or in the vicinity angle.
> SC: We can only deal in terms of what they did. They created a
> rectangle for G3.
I don't care. We are determining diagonal pyramid ratios. It could be square, rectangle, or cone. All are pyramids. Irrelevant.
> SC: As I said - the 48 degree angle is line L1, not line L2.
L1 is not an angle it is a line. The L1 - L2 angle is constant - you cannot change it. The only angle you can change is L2-L3. The perfect G2-G3 solution is an angle of 84.06 degrees. This can be created by two identical rectangles uniting their [(84.06 deg)/2] = 42.03 degrees angles. The complementary angle is thus 47.97 degrees.
So what don't you understand? The question still remains. Why did they choose these angles and not different ones?
> 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?
They have not published the survey data but he has published the dimensions of Menkaure's pyramid in his book "The Complete Pyramids". The question is not which technique is superior, the question is which surveyor is superior. It makes no difference if you are using tape measure or laser equipment, if you don't know where the original base boundaries are. The accuracy of Petrie's measurements on G1 was confirmed by Cole.
The same technique was used to measure G3. If a mistake was made, it was because the exact base borders at the correct horizontal height and the casing stone edges was not determined correctly. Now who is the one that probably made the fumble, Petrie or Lehner?