> SC: I suggest you look
> The stats are at the end.
You write accuracy 98.11%. That is error 1.89%. My calculations - base on ideal G2-G3 fit raise this number to 2.9%. Both values are too high.
> 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
I don't follow you. Why would you want to rotate L1? L1 and L2 are fixed. They are based on the Orion visual distances. But see below.
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.
Yes I understand this. I think we are saying the same thing. I don't use an azimuth for L1 - or actually it is 90* - horizontal. Then all you have to do is pick the L2-L3 angle to your choice. The L1-L2 angle is constant and it is based on the Orion belt star data on 2580 BC. We are saying the same thing.
> 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.
Just want to point out that Cole measured G1 not G3. OK this is a valid point, but still it would be better if another survey was performed by someone else to clear up this issue once and for all. We have seen modern surveys in the past coming up with different results.