>SC: Are you deliberately "not getting this", Archae? The issue
>here concerns the clear inter-quarter geometric relationships
>between the main Gizamids and the queens. You could line up
>three pyramids along the strike of the plateau with slightly
>different sizes to the actual pyramids and you would completely
>fail to achieve these inter-quarter geometric relationships.
So what......... they can be lined up strictly on an underlying geological/engineering premise. That's not random, and it does not require a pre-pre-plan of the whole site just a general relationship to the stratigraphy and a desire to maintain it over the construction history of the site. You seem to be stuck on this lack of "randomness" notion that somehow indicates a need for a pre-pre-plan. A lack of a pre-pre-plan at Giza does not need to produce randomness...... it can still be orderly in the completed site without one.
>Make G1 or G3 slightly bigger or smaller, make G1 or G3
>slightly further east, west, north or south and the
>inter-quarter geometric relationship we observe today
>completely breaks down.
Again, they appear to be lined up along the strike of stratigraphy...... that is not random. You seem to need to argue for more randomness than there needs to be.... Why do size and lateral position need to be random with no order if there was no pre-pre-plan at Giza?
If the last 2 kings who built pyramids at Giza decided to line their constructions up with the strike of stratigraphy like the previous king did. That does not require pre-pre-planning of the whole site.......
>So, do you consider the clear,
>geometric relationship we observe in these structures to be the
>result of a "happy concidence"? A simple yes or no will
Clearly not...... since geological/engineering purposes do not need to be a "happy coincidence" or be pre-pre-planed by geologically imaginative Lost Ones. Other factors that do not require a overall pre-pre-plan can preclude randomness at the site....
Archae Solenhofen (firstname.lastname@example.org)