> Hi MJ,
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.
> 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.
I see these two things as interdependent.
To put it very simply, you can’t have a vast geometric pattern laid out on the Giza Plateau (or anywhere else) without a plan to work from; but there’s no point in drawing up such a plan if you don’t have the means and skills needed to turn it into a reality.
We know from the results of the surveys carried out first by Petrie in 1882, then by Cole in 1925, that the builders of the Great Pyramid were master surveyors in so far as they managed to create a near-perfect square covering 13.13 acres of rough terrain.
But what we don’t know is how they achieved it.
Then we have to consider the possibility that the accuracy we see in the lengths of the Pyramid’s sides - only 7.9” difference between the shortest (north) and longest (south) sides – the near perfect right angles of the corners of the base, and the base’s N-S-E-W orientation were all a fluke – especially as these degrees of accuracy are not seen in any other pyramid.
In arguing that the layouts of Giza’s three great and six lesser pyramids were planned and laid out accurately as a single entity, you and Gary are, IMO, in danger of crediting the ancient surveyors with skills they never possessed.
However, I must point out that I am a bit muddled over how accurate you and Gary think the overall plan of the pyramids’ layout is.
I read recently of a proposed accuracy of a 2” error over a distance of half-a mile, but I can’t recall whether it was you, Gary or somebody else who proposed this.
Having said all that, I am aware that I might be doing these Ancient surveyors a grave injustice in questioning the level of their skills.
> First of all we can demonstrate, with the Orion Geo-Stellar
> Fingerprint, how the various curious aspects of the Giza
> pyramids came into being – emphasis added by MJT.
I think it would be more honest and accurate to say ‘could have come 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.
That you and Gary choose to see your Orion GSF as meaningful is okay with me; after all we are dealing with a hypothesis and not a fact or theory here.
> 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.
There is no doubting that the Giza pyramids form a pattern that is strikingly similar to Orion’s Belt, etc.
But this does not prove that the Giza pyramids were set out in a single plan.
There is, as I have pointed out before, plenty of scope for a very mundane social/religious/political/family-feud explanation for this apparent similarity that has these pyramids being planned and built largely independent of each other (there is clear evidence of ideas re the interiors being copied from earlier structures - Khufu's Grand Gallery via Sneferu's 'gallery' in his satellite pyramid).
> The next part of your question relates to how it could actually
> have been done.
I still consider it necessary to find out how this seemingly very accurate surveying work over a very large area of uneven terrain was completed.
If it can’t be replicated using the equipment the original surveyors had or might have had, then we could be looking very seriously at coincidence not intent.
So few answers - and not one of them mine.