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: 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.
SC: It works out for all three Gizamids. What seems clear is that the base of G3 is intrinsically linked to lines L1 and L2 with L1 rotated to an angle of 48/42 degrees. I stated in another post here over a week ago that it is anyone's guess why the angle of 48/42 degrees was used. You obviously missed that. Perhaps the surveyors first searched for a suitable site for their planned constructions. They noted the strike angle of the plateau and designed their structures close to that angle. In this way they could be linking the topography of the site to the proportions of the structures they would design and build there. That is just a guess - who knows why they chose the 48/42 angle. It could have been for any number of reasons. You really cannot expect me to have all the answers. Perhaps there is some further meaning yet to be realised in making this particular choice that we have yet to uncover.
Ogy: 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: 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.
SC: I suggest you look here. The stats are at the end.
Ogy: 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: See above.
SC: As I said - the 48 degree angle is line L1, not line L2.
Ogy: L1 is not an angle it is a line.
SC: It is a line angled at 48/42 degrees. Degrees are a measure of angles.
Ogy: The L1 - L2 angle is constant - you cannot change it.
SC: Indeed. But when you rotate L1 (keeping L2), it changes the proportions of the resulting base. The angle of 48* of L1 is intrinsically locked to the dimensions of G3. In fact, this could have been done by the designer's as a means of 'proving' the L1 line which is formed from the first two Belt stars (doubled).
Ogy: The only angle you can change is L2-L3.
SC: Not so. Line L3 is place through the diagonal of the mirrored G3 base. The angle of L3, therefore, is dependent on the outcome of G3 base which is further dependent on L2 and the rotation of L1.
Ogy: So what don't you understand? The question still remains. Why did they choose these angles and not different ones?
SC: See above.
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?
Ogy: 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.
SC: And all it may confirm is that both made the same mistake.
Ogy: 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?
SC: Well given that Lehner and his team would have known of Petrie and Cole's results for G3, I am sure that had they obtained a different result from those eminent surveyors that they would have noticed that and then double and triple checked their own findings.