MJ: Hang on, chaps.
These various geometric drawings alone are not enough to enable anybody to state whether or not they were intended by the planners of the Giza necropolis or any part of it.
The lines are imaginary, just like the ones some people 'find' criss-crossing Salisbury Plain (the home of Stonehenge).
Consequently, we have to ask ourselves: if these patterns are deliberate, then how could they have been achieved, and with such a seemingly high degree of accuracy?
If nobody can demonstrate practically how it all could have been achieved, then surely we are moving away from intent and into the realms of coincidence.
How far into the realms of coincidence?
Who can say; and does it really matter anyway?
Obviously, there were elements of geometry involved in the planning of the pyramids, temples and tombs we see at Giza (and Saqqara, etc.), but was it on the vast scale (and drawn up possibly within a single lifetime) that Scott, Gary, Don et al, would have us believe through their respective drawings and calculations, or was it as mainstream Egyptologists argue, a collection of individual (and therefore comparatively small) plans created over three or more generations?
For what it's worth, unless and until somebody can demonstrate practically how this 'single plan' was set out on the Giza Plateau with such alleged accuracy (this accuracy varies slightly from theorist to theorist - an error of 2" in half a mile has been suggested), my money is on coincidence.
SC: I think there are a couple of different issues here which you are mixing up. How they laid out the preconceived plan at Giza is quite separate from how likely is it that there was a preconceived plan at Giza.
First of all we can demonstrate, with the Orion Geo-Stellar Fingerprint, how the various curious aspects of the Giza pyramids came into being. We can show with the GSF why there is one very small pyramid and two larger pyramids with one just slightly larger than the other. Using the Orion GSF we can match the relative proportions between G1 and G2 to 100% and between G2 and G3 to a little over 98% accuracy. Statistically speaking, a probability value is fairly meaningless unless it has a value of over 95%. So, in this sense at least, we can say factually that the Orion GSF is perfectly meaningful. The GSF also explains why G3 is a slight rectangle whilst G2 and G1 are more square (though not perfectly so on the ground). The GSF explains the Lehner-Goedeke Line. The GSF explains the inter-quarter line relationships between G1 and G3 and also G2 when it is centred onto the middle star. (We have given a reasonable explanation as to why G2 was likely to have been moved off its planned GSF position). The extended GSF explains why there is a geometric relationship between the main Gizamids, Sphinx and the two sets of Queens Pyramids. The GSF even explains why there ar NO so-called Queens Pyramids at G2. In short, MJ, the GSF explains a lot of what we actually find at Giza. That does not, of course, prove it is how the plan came about. We have no one to tell us if we are correct so we have to turn to math - to statistics and probability.
How probable is the GSF to have been the method used to create what we find at Giza? Well, I have explained this to you before. If you consider this all simply as "coincidence" (i.e. a random layout) then simply try and replicate what we have at Giza. This is to say that we have three bases whose proportions are derived from a particular triad of stars in a set fashion. In the case of Giza, these stars are Orion's Belt. The bases are ALSO laid down almost perfectly in the asterism of Orion's Belt. So you have to replicate ALL of that - the relative proportions from three random bases AND the pattern of the asterism from which they were derived. The low end of the odds of you succeeding in this are around 8 trillion to 1. The upper odds are around 280 trillion to 1. And yet, lo and behold, the Ancient Egytians managed it. And they could ONLY have managed to do this had it been PLANNED from the outset - a preconceived plan.
Which begs the question - if this is indeed a preconceived plan (which the probability strongly suggests that it is) - then the plan could have been put together in an hour or so. Measure the star asterism, plot them on papyrus sheet within a wooden frame and proceed with the GSF dot-to-dot process. So why plan three pyramids on day one? Why plan three so-called Queens pyramids for a King (Menkaure) who would not take the throne (if mainstrream chronology is to be believed), for another 60 years or so? How did the planner know 60 years or so in advance that Menkaure would only require three so-called Queens Pyramids? And yet they can clearly be shown to be an integral part of the GSF and the extended GSF with the Sphinx. And why didn't the planner plan ANY so-called Queens Pyramids for Rachaf (Khafre) when it is known that this king had at least five queens? The planner could NOT have known any of these things ergo he could NOT have been planning these structures as tombs of queens he knew nothing about - and yet, as stated, the so-called Queens Pyramid are integral to the overall plan.
The next part of your question relates to how it could actually have been done. I presume by that you mean laid out on the ground. Well, once you have defined your plan you the GSF, you have all your bases in place in th eplan, you then decide where is the best site location for such a plan. Giza was ideal since it had a rock outcrop from which to carve the Sphinx and had a strike that ran at around 43* - perfect for a diagonal line of pyramids. The chosen scale for the monuments may have been defined by the length of the plateau itself or perhaps the length of the centre to centre of G1 but that is pure speculation on my part. I have in the past suggested that the scale of the monuments may have been defined by the length of the Sphinx (around 140 cubits). The GP, therefore, is 3.14 x 140 = 439.6 cubits. Again, pure speculation on my part.
So once the plan has been decided, a simple grid is laid out over it and a larger scale grid replicated onto the chosen site i.e. the Giza plateau. This will then allow the builders to scale up the plan - and rocky outcrops near G2 notwithstanding - to ensure everything is in the right place according to the GSF Blueprint.
Hope this helps to answer your questions.
Post Edited (27-Feb-12 12:05)