Though it might be premature to be offering positive conclusions of Mick's Geometrical Construction at this point there are a few notes that should be mentioned. 1. To our knowledge this is the first time that anyone has created a construction theory for Giza from a clean drawing board. This is a very different process from simply taking the existing structures and finding alignments. This feature should not be overlooked - nor dismissed too quickly. 2. Mick's use of British inches for his base octagon was chosen because it reflected Petrie's own figures. This one feature alone may cause some raised eyebrows but fear not - all is not yet lost. 3. It is also becoming increasingly fashionable to attempt to discredit Petrie's data in preference to more recent surveys although the differences are actually very small. It should also be born in mind that all the surveyors are not measuring 'like for like' - that is to say that the corner points of the pyramids and the temples are so badly damaged and eroded that each surveyor has to determine where he or she will take their measurements. It cannot be assumed that every surveyor will choose the same points in space (and nor can these different points even be compared between surveys) and so it is probable that a major factor of the disparity of dimensions is that the surveyors are actually measuring different things - all be it, by very small variations. 4. We ought also to consider the actual value of using steadily more and more accurate survey equipment. The surveying facilities possessed by the Ancient Egyptians (and we do not know what these were) enabled them to lay out their Grand Plan as close as they could to their design. What we are trying to determine today is what that design was - if we use equipment that is far superior to theirs we will only succeed in determining what their errors were - and this will not help us to determine what their design was. If they used lengths of knotted string and we use laser theodolites what really are we discovering? 5. In his book The Great Pyramid Decoded, Peter Lemesurier presents an interesting hypothesis in respect of Rutherford's survey figures of the Great Pyramid. He suggests that any geometrical construction should be verifiable by the use of trigonometry - and these figures can then be compared with the survey figures. If the geometry is properly done with a CAD programme then the trigonometry figures can be regarded as accurate - and if the trig. figures are the same as the survey figures then the survey figures must be 'correct'. On that reasoning the astonishing similarity between Mick's figures and Petrie's should not be dismissed without some serious consideration. 6. An additional complication when dealing with the Giza Plateau is the evidence that what the Egyptians actually built is not necessarily what they designed - and there are various reasons given for these discrepancies. With the Great Pyramid in particular there seems to be no dispute that there is what are referred to as 'the designed pyramid' and 'the actually built pyramid'. It seems to me that, although most geometers may be constructing what was 'designed', the surveyors can only be measuring what was 'built'. This in itself can introduce enormous errors without anybody realising. And those geometers discovering numerous 'mis-alignments' are presumably confused as a resut of working between the two extremes... ________________________________________________________ We intend that this Geometrical Construction will be continued in the future by showing alignments to the G1 'sockets', the G2 Pavement, and to the six main satellite pyramids. We then intend to suggest how the entire complex can be fitted onto the Giza Plateau... aligning with other structures including the Sphinx, the Valley Temples, the enclosure walls - and perhaps even the Wall of The Crow... After that we would like to introduce Mick's ideas of how he thinks that Giza can be geometrically linked with both Stonehenge and Avebury... but that will be a while I'm afraid owing to pressure of other work. If you have any comments or questions relating to this Construction, or other items on this site, please email: comment@octagon-maat.co.uk |