 Giza
 OCT 3

 Measuring With Lines

 here's Jim Alison's pic, again... with nice neat little proportions ...make a model of these squares: check his math a little bit first
 assuming that's a 45° angle start with a line from G1nw meet with another from G3sw extending from line to G3se but which corners exactly ? ...see, G3 is rotated 0.28° either one is close enough, ...i guess whichever one... ...is closer to whatever... ...will be my favorite... i'll start with the "model" straight, un-rotated one... the first one divide into 3 but the second into 2 fours ...and now... a 3rd line... with proportions of 10 n 11 and this axis: at G2 center
 ...well, we'll see... what those numbers be ``` ``` measuring lines: from SC's diagram of his geometrical plotting of OCT ...here, i rotated his image 180° to bring it closer to a NSEW view
 ...the yellow line is his L1 (roughly) from G3ne, through G2 (and close to corners) ...to G1 center but... continuing on to G1ne
 the red line is: G1a-NE to G3a-SW closely touching G1se and G2se...
 the upper blue line looks like it's intersecting the following points: G1e and G1s... G2e and G2s G3ne and G3sw... G3c-ne, G3c-sw
 now, not all of those are going to be exact but, i'll try to see how close i can get...
 Scott Creighton: the (red) SE line connects all three sets of 3 pyramids i estimate, that the length ...is around 2238 cubits... ...divide this 2238 by the length of the G1 440 = 5.086 G1 encodes Pi (3.14) x G3 encodes Phi (1.62) = 5.086 ...so, Pi x Phi (5.086) may be... the underlying unit of measurement ...upon which the cubit was based measuring G1aNE-G3aSW... from the NE corner of G1a to the SW corner of G3a ```G1a coords: ( 373 , -64 ) at 95 cubits square 95 / 2 = 47.5 373 + 47.5 = 420.5 -64 + 47.5 = -16.5 G1aNE: ( 420.5 , -16.5 ) ``` ```G3a ( -1088.75 , -1596 ) at 84 cubits square 84 / 2 = 42 -1088.75 - 42 = -1130.75 -1596 - 42 = -1638 G3aSW: ( -1130.75 , -1638 ) ``` ```measuring the hypotenuse for that right triangle 1130.75 + 420.5 = 1551.25 ... 1638 - 16.5 = 1621.5 (1551.25)2 + (1621.5)2 = C2 ``` ```A2 2,406,376.5625 B2 + 2,629,262.25 C2 = 5,035,638.8125 and the square root of that = 2244.022908... ```
 just 6 cubits off that target 2238 but they're at different elevations (someone get me those numbers) ...what is the altitude difference ? ...also, 6 cubits (almost exactly)... though a nice round number (hex) ...is well within my margin of error measuring pixels off the satellite

 closeup overhead of G3nw corner... with SC's OCT lines roughly placed ... L1 (yellow) ... L2 (green) ... red square is the NW corner of G3
 still searching for SC's L1... but, the first thing i did is: measure a line from G1 to G3nw ... G1 ( 0.00 , 0.00 ) G3nw ( -1197.50 , -1310.50 ) ... cp ( -598.75 , -655.25 ) and, i'll do it that way if i have to, (as that is the center of that circle) but, in this case, it's easier to just ...center an object at G1 center (0,0) (so that line will extend far NE also) ...and ending at... ...the red square... the distance between G1 center and G3nw is exactly 1774.5
 L1 at 42.42° intersects G3nw: so, 42 degrees (360th circle) and 42 hundredths of a degree = to 25.20 minutes exactly... that's interesting, because... the line between G1sw and G2ne measures 328.5 cubits at 40.42° (same 42 hundredths of a degree)
 ...right image... overhead wireframe composite zoom of G2ne
 i also noticed L1 passes almost right through G2ne ...well, ok... not exactly... the same point where it passes through G2 E side point-X ( -433 , -473.85 ) ...G2ne ( -433 , -470.00 ) is almost 4 cubits (3.85) south of the G2ne corner a line from there to G1sw G1sw ( -220 , -220.00 ) ...measures 40° exactly ...one 9th of a circle ...or a 3rd of a 3rd ...at 331.35 cubits
 331.35 from 333 is 1.65 and that times 3 = 4.95 but, say i'm off a hair ...which is most likely 5 over 3 is 1.6666..... ...or, put very simply ...five... thirds... ...so i'm gonna say... that 1.65 is just 5/3 (but i'll accept 1.60)
 extending that line to 333 and the box for the point now rotated to match 40° made 1.6 cubits square ...the edges touch...
 blue line = G1sw-G2ne yellow dot = G2ne gray line = G2ne-sw brown area = G2 base yellow line = SC's L1 green line = 40° angle X extended to 333 cubits
 figuring for angle X ```( -220 , -220 ) ( -433 , -473.85 ) 213 -253.85 106.5 -126.925 ( -326.5 , -346.925 ) ``` clear white turned box is the point of intersection L1 (G1-G3sw) meets G2 center of box is angle X at 331.35 cubits ...these numbers definitely... ...have something in common... (thus they're not an accident)
 again, G1sw-G2ne (blue line) is 40.42° ...and angle X (green line) is 40.00° the short side, connecting (upper G2e) is a total 3.85 cubits, point to point sine of 3.85 is 0.067144621099... 2/3 of a tenth... (they're artists)
 it is the position of egyptology that there is no special geometry involved with the pyramids of giza except the most very basic of things associated with pyramids, generally therefore, anything anybody finds or thinks they're possibly finding is obviously pure imagination ...and the more involved... the more we're ranting because of where the idea goes that it couldn't possibly have been any of their favorite ancient kings who developed the vast designs or even conceived these things and i don't know about any of that and i'm not out to rewrite history but, of course there's alignments everywhere that's obviously the way it was designed whoever could have pulled off such a thing but if they're not willing to accept that which is easily plainly shown seriously get a map and a triangle and do your own the simplest implications are only further glorifying their glorious histories impressive national pride then they must be certain otherwise that where that logic track is going that this means their story is false such things must prove eventually they're wrong in what they say ...they must be so sure... something more, so impressive that it couldn't possibly have been who they're insisting it is (period) even ridiculously unreasonably all along, and unquestionably inconsolably ...hyper-actively... casually dismissively of everything presented to the potential contrary

 ...and zooming in on G3nw... white line is L1 (center G1) green line is L2 (center G3) yellow square is G3nw proper (in this case, dubbed G3nw1) but, G3 is rotated 0.28° so, red square is G3nw actual... (in this case, dubbed G3nw2)
 ...G3nw1 and G3nw2 are at an approximate 45° relationship to each other... (red square arcing on axis of G3 center) measuring a line: from G3nw1 to G3nw2 (the centers of red and yellow boxes) ...to determine angle and distance...
 ```G3nw1 ( -1197.5 , -1310.5 ) ... ( -1197.25 , -1310.25 ) G3nw2 ( -1197.0 , -1310 ) ```
 the line between is the angle of a half cubit square root 2 times 0.5 = 0.7071067811... (the sine of 45°) ```figuring for line G1se-G3se G1se = ( 220.00 , -220.00 ) G3se = ( -996.00 , -1512.00 ) diff .. 1216 ..... 1292 half ... 608 ...... 646 midpt. ( -388 , -866 ) ``` is 1774.25 cubits, at 43.264° 43° 15.84' ... 43° 15' 50.4" passes just barely SE of G2se which is coords: (-433, -881)
 coords for G2 center ( -638.50 ,-675.50 ) side for G2 being 411 C2, the circle for G2 411 x root 2 = 581.25 (581.241774135342...) 581.25 cubit diameter 290.625 cubit radius extending that circle to 626.20 ...brings it right in line with the line from G1se to G3se ...
 C2a 313.1 radius 626.2 diameter
 ...centered on G2se the object for the line from there to point A measures 45 cubits... ...and yes, exactly... and of course at 45°
 therefore, line AG = 22.5 22.5° is 16th of a circle a cubit degree correlation
 ```A ( -417.1 , -896.9 ) = C2a x B ( -433 , -913.8 ) = G2e x C ( -402.125 , -881 ) = G2s x D ( -428.67 , -907.75 ) = C2a-1 E ( -394 , -870.93 ) = C2a-2 F ( -417.8 , -896.2 ) = C2a-3 G ( -433 , -881 ) = G2se ```
 click pic for hi-rez
 and here, notice where the curve from the wide arc of C2a (brown) enters and exits, overlapping onto the line for G1se-G3se (green) i wonder what the proportions are for this thin crescent (yellow) it seems to me they should remain the same no matter how thick i make that green line just proportionally (that angle, that arc)
 ...C2a is intersecting the line at 45° but, because the line itself isn't 45° (just shy of that... at about 43.264°) ...it is further south than it is east it's pulling away from 45° at 46.736°
 a difference of 1.736 from 45° a difference of 0.014 from 1.75 reminds me of root 2 (1.414...)
 now, point A is not exactly between point B and point C
 because the line on which they're based ...G1se-G3se... is... roughly... 43.26° so, now i have to do 3 different objects ...but before i figure their coordinates
 i duplicated the object for the dot point A converted it to a cube, centered on point A ...then zoomed in on the object for point C ...and then adjusted the object's length... until it met the center of point C at 43.66 ...divide that in half... 43.66 / 2 = 21.83 ...therefore, line AC is 21.83 cubits so, half of... 1/3 short of 44 cubits
 1/6th cubit from 22 ...asking me nicely to draw a hex, here (yeah... somewhere)
 repeating the same trick ...to figure for line AB... zooming in on point B... adjusting object's length until it meets the center ...of point B at... 46.4 and half of that is 23.2 ...so that's the line AB and using the same pair of tricks for the line from point D to E... ...centered on point F... same approximated degrees
 reaching point D center the line object is 31.7 ...thus, line DF = 15.85
 and repeating process zooming in on point E object length = 69.42 half of that is 34.71 and that's my line EF adding those together 15.85 + 34.71 = 50.56 for length of line DE centered somewhere in there but i'm interested in ratio
 15.85 DF + 34.71 EF = 50.56 DE
 ```15.85 / 4 = 3.9625 and 34.71 / 3.9625 = 8.75962145110... ...or roughly 19/4 and also 8 and 3/4 ```
 ```15.85 / 34.71 = 0.456640... ``` ```34.71 / 15.85 2.18990536... ```
 ```...divided by 5 DF > 15, so > 3 EF < 35, so < 7 ```
 ```15.85 / 50.56 = 0.31348892405063291139240506329114... 34.71 / 50.56 = 0.68651107594936708860759493670886... ```      ...and continuing on with the investigation... Giza
 OCT 3
 « prev « OCT 2 » next » OCT 4