Breakthrough in understanding Giza pyramids

www.vejprty.com...

Were the three famous Giza pyramids designed as a group? The answer has been sought in geometrical and arithmetical relationships in their layout. Indeed, great many relationships have been found. Unfortunately, most scholars prefer to see these relationships as coincidental. No one has been able to derive the layout with complete accuracy, and so builders' mistakes are called upon to explain the discrepancies. In any case, the picture we get is that of a brilliant, but early civilisation, adequately low in technology, just the way Egyptology and Academy likes it.
But, what about an elegant method of developing the Giza layout exactly? If it exists, should it not be considered as the rediscovered method of the Egyptian planners themselves? I have discovered this method, but the problem is that it is exact. That was not supposed to happen. The way it works, it brings us back a full circle to the perennial speculation about advanced prehistoric science.
If you have Autocad, or other engineering program, you are invited to test the procedure for yourself.

reply to post by Jiri Mruzek


I notice some of your lines do not all connect to the objects depicted, nor are they straight lines.

Specifically the pic here:

www.vejprty.com...

Do you mind if I post a copy of your diagram here, illustrating this?

How does this impact your theory?

Thanks.

just the way Egyptology and Academy likes it.

The concept of "like" has little to do with it - it is where the evidence points to.

May I recommend that you go to Hall of Ma'at board and you will find endless discussion of this very subject. Contact also the following board members, Don Barone and Clive - they are kindred thinkers to yourself in regards to Giza.

By all means, do post it. You will have to do it now too, since you allege problems of utmost seriousness. Everything has been constructed in CAD, and should be just as specified. I hope, you are not measuring the actual gifs, because gifs are notoriously inexact.
If you have a suitable program, use it to duplicate the procedure. I guarantee you exactly the same results.

"May I recommend that you go to Hall of Ma'at board and you will find endless discussion of this very subject. Contact also the following board members, Don Barone and Clive - they are kindred thinkers to yourself in regards to Giza."

Strange, as soon as got here, you have the good tact to tell me to go somewhere else. Moreover, you immediately classified me as a 'kindred thinker" to some people without even considering that I may be already familiar with everything and everybody you mention, and may not share your feelings.

reply to post by Jiri Mruzek


My apologies Jiri, I didn't recognize your name initially from Ma'at. I would say they ARE kindred spirits as they obsessed with finding relations, angles and number within the Giza plateau.

Ah you guys don't agree?

So this is old stuff you've already shown to Egyptologists and other notable people? What was there response to it?

I don't think I ever posted at Maat. Never made this public other then going to the lion's den (Randi's) even before finishing. Sometimes they have good ideas, and if the critique fits I am grateful for it. However the Randi's skeptics went somewhat ballistic on this study of mine, and just started an avalanche of personal attacks.Prior to visitors from ATS, only about two people had found their way to my article.

"Obsessed with finding relations, angles and number within the Giza plateau. "

And what did they find? If they had solved the puzzle, how could I claim the same long after they did it?

reply to post by Jiri Mruzek


Lots of people have "solutions" for the Giza plateau, I've seen at least a half dozen in the last few years. Scott Criegton has one as does Clive and I think Don Barone has one too- they all contradict of course but hey what can you do.

I don't think I ever posted at Maat.

Well you may not have but another guy named Jiri did he started five threads in 2003 - which is why I didn't remember you directly. Sorry I miss you on JREF.

"Lots of people have "solutions" for the Giza plateau, I've seen at least a half dozen in the last few years. Scott Criegton has one as does Clive and I think Don Barone has one too- they all contradict of course but hey what can you do."

What if this puzzle were like a leaky tap? Many people show up and fix it, but the tap is still leaky. Continuing this allegory, my theory had fixed the tap once and for all. In other words, I can produce the layout of Giza's three major pyramids from scratch, basing on certain geometrical ideas, and it is highly accurate. In fact, it could not be more accurate. There is only one slight discrepancy (1.2 inch) on the third pyramid, which is still more accurate than the best fit in other theories, where a cubit either way does not seem to matter much. Just blame the imprecision on the builders.

It's too bad about JREF, the skeptics' den, but those guys hate to be taught anything by amateurs, and God help us, even monkeys. It is not my fault that a monkey knows geometric methods unknown to mathematicians today. Have you followed that particular thread, where JS Fischer got beaten by a monkey regarding the quickest construction of a regular 5-pointed star? That construction does not seem to be on record anywhere else.

Well that is just great, well done Jiri. I recomment that you take your discovery and show it to the Egyptologists at the Hall of Ma'at. There are zero Egyptologist on this board AFAIK. You might also want to show it to Scott Creighton. He has a sub forum here on his theory of how the Pyramids were located - all nice and logical. You to may wish to exchange notes.

Scott

Here is a discussion of Clive's work

Clive's pyramid work

Discussions between three finders of solutions to the pyramid question should be of great interest.

Good luck

I all so agree that Giza is allot more and that the layout of Giza has more to be discovered especially with a 7000 to 17000 years difference. they need to do more in Giza and less politics.



www.abovetopsecret.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by cmaracing

with a 7000 to 17000 years difference

What is your theory cmaracing? What do you base those dates on?

"Discussions between three finders of solutions to the pyramid question should be of great interest.

Good luck"


Thanks, Hans..

One fine wrinkle here is that my theory already involves a minimum of three researchers. You must have noticed the integration of some of John Legon's, and Robin Cook's ideas in it. It does not go against these theories, it builds on them. John Legon sets the cubit units, and one element of Cook's theory is absolutely crucial to my reconstruction, although it does not work quite in the same way.
As for talking to Egyptologists, after Randi's, I am not in the mood for being insulted. And why would an Egyptologist have an interest in my theory? Egyptologists have renounced the type of theory like mine once and for all, a priori. My theory is for the benefit of people in general.

5000 to 7000 is the date given for giza but there is water arrosion on other credible places. all so the last time the Nile was close to the pyramids to transport some of the stones is about 3000 to 11000.
all so the giza area was green about 7000 to 17000 years ago,
and going on the idea that you would have a large population near a large river with vegetation and take in the possibility for the fabled lighthouse at about 15000.
plus there is no way to date the pyramids

Originally posted by cmaracing
5000 to 7000 is the date given for giza but there is water arrosion on other credible places. all so the last time the Nile was close to the pyramids to transport some of the stones is about 3000 to 11000.
all so the giza area was green about 7000 to 17000 years ago,
and going on the idea that you would have a large population near a large river with vegetation and take in the possibility for the fabled lighthouse at about 15000.
plus there is no way to date the pyramids

With some exceptions, I agree. But, what has this got to do with my theory? You have not said much about it one way or another. My theory is new, and needs discussion.
By the way, there are no stones in the pyramid that we know of (some may be hidden deep in the masonry), which could not be transported. Up to 80 tons was nothing for the Egyptians. 1100 to 1200 tons is a different matter, but even this was obviously possible to them since we can surmise that they would not commence work on the famous unfinished obelisk at Aswam without confidence in being able to transport it long distances. How unfortunate that this obelisk had a fatal flaw discovered late in the process, otherwise it would probably be standing somewhere 500 miles downriver.

On the Giza plateau there are 3 visible pyramid's, the two that are the closest to each other is Khufu pyramid and khafre pyramid the 3rd one is pushed off to far to be any relevance to the other two, but what if the 3rd pyramid which is menkaure pyramid is part of a viewing point. If you see khufu and khafre pyramid's from above you start to see that start to form 2 pyramids that can not be located above the ground ither because they where not constructed or are buried under the sand i have fotos that show that the possibility that 2 extra pyramids ether where planed or are built but are under the sand. when the picture was further examined by me and a Friend we found that it contained a 3D square.
Further more when all for pyramids are introduced the pyramid of Menkaure happens to follow a line that intersects to a point that could suggest a possible entrance to an underground tunnel.

home.comcast.net...

see my pics.

Originally posted by cmaracing
On the Giza plateau there are 3 visible pyramid's, the two that are the closest to each other is Khufu pyramid and khafre pyramid the 3rd one is pushed off to far to be any relevance to the other two,

Pushed off too far? That's a purely esthetic perception. In fact, at least in the planning phase of the layout, the third pyramid, the G3, comes before G2. Khafre's pyramid is the child of the other two. John Legon was first to make a strong case for the three pyramids as a group from the planning stage. He proves by standard geometrical procedure that the north-south distance between the pyramids should be either 1732 cubits even, or in another case the constructed value of the square-root of 3 times 1,000, depending on the time period he was writing in. The precise value is the latter one, I think. Anyhow, Legon is specific, and his valuation can be checked in terms of inches, or in terms of one's own construction. That way there can be continuity. Everything one does in terms of geometric construction with Giza can be expressed in an exact manner in relation to this plan of the three pyramids by Petrie. Commitment to exactly this scale paid off for my own theory. I am able to say that under exactly these terms a given distance is 112.9996 cubits, and so on. I've read something by Don Barone on Ma'at today, where he says that some point in his reconstruction misses being exact by only .5 cubit. To him it's close, to someone else it could be different. But, he does give a number to work with.
I'll look again, but I didn't see detailed description of your theory at your site. I'd like to see you do some more work, and really flesh out the skeleton demonstration, because ideas of others on Giza's layout interest me greatly. Get rid of those thick lines, many cubits across.
By the way, no geometry will lead to digging at Giza. If anything, scans would have to be made first, but how deep can you scan?
If there is a tunnel, so what? Do you expect finding treasures there? I wouldn't . Not at Giza, but if so, then it would be seriously out of reach of accidental discovery, and certainly would not be pointed to by the three pyramids in any manner whatsoever. There is no such easy money.

but what if the 3rd pyramid which is menkaure pyramid is part of a viewing point. If you see khufu and khafre pyramid's from above you start to see that start to form 2 pyramids that can not be located above the ground ither because they where not constructed or are buried under the sand i have fotos that show that the possibility that 2 extra pyramids ether where planed or are built but are under the sand. when the picture was further examined by me and a Friend we found that it contained a 3D square.
Further more when all for pyramids are introduced the pyramid of Menkaure happens to follow a line that intersects to a point that could suggest a possible entrance to an underground tunnel.

home.comcast.net...

see my pics.

That cube is hard to see.