Re: Pyramidiocy (was Re: Strange Maths)

Whittet (
17 Jul 1995 17:03:51 GMT

In article <>, says...
>[ Bill fondly remembers the day he dropped-in on sci.archaeology in order
> to find out something about the Oxus digs only to find the group a nest
> of loons ... ]
>In article <3uc0vi$> (Whittet) writes:
>>The pyramid is also located so that an arc swept from its center and
>>intersecting its diagonals neatly encloses Egypts delta.
>And points *directly* and *unmistakably* to a point in Europe that is
>pointed to by a line bisecting the line drawn from Rennes le Chateau to
>a real big rock somewhere. Astounding!

Let's just stick with the Egyptian delta for a second. If you don't think
its difficult to accurately align and survey positions over a distance
of sixty or seventy miles, try it sometime. It impressed the French savants
who accompanied Napoleon and were the first to measure the monuments of Egypt
carefully enough to note such correspomdences.

One way of dealing with such accompishments is to claim they were beyond the
capabilites of people just emerging into the bronze age and ignore them. Others
prefer to ascribe them to such non-science as aliens or atlanteans.

As an architect I am just interested in comparing what they did with what I a
think I might be able to get a contractor to do today. Working out the methods
they used is not impossible, we have examples of the tools they used and can
reconstruct their methodology. In some cases they left enough clues behind to
make the method obvious, and in other cases the answer is more subtle.

>>The number of feet in a mile can be obtained from the number of days in a
>>millenium divided by the number of miles in a degree of the earths
>>circumference at the equator 365240/69.17424... = 5280

It has been documented that the measurements of the Earths circumference ascribed to
Eratosthenes were actually made by the Egyptians some millenia earlier, and I have
posted the cites for this here several times.
>The Egyptians not only knew the circumfrence of the earth but could
>acurately predict the *exact* size of the English mile *before* there
>was an England. Time! Space! Synchronicity!

The English mile is closely related to the Roman. The Roman to the Greek,
the Greek to the Egyptian. The correlation is hardly suprising, and has been
studied in depth.
>>The pyramid idiocy part comes from the fact that the more correlations you
>>want to get the more sophisticated the model you have to use. The mere Pi
>>relation is dwarfed by the derivation of the mile as a ratio between measures
>>of time and space.
>Have you ever done the calculations that reveal the hidden message encoded
>in the Washington Monument? No, not that stupid thing in Washington, D.C.
>The *real* Washington Monument that is (can it be mere coincidence?) located
>in <pause for effect> *Alexandria*? Templars! Cathars! Freemasons!
>>One suspected correlation is that:
>[ yadda-yadda-yadda deleted ]
>>Ignoring for the moment that this pyramid was constructed about 4,500 years
>> a time when most people were supposedly just entering the Bronze
>But *we* know better, eh bunky?

Lets start with the fact that it was constructed. A society well enough organized to
mobilize sufficient manpower to build pyramids need not be considered totally clueless.

The tools used by the Egyptians would not be out of place among those used by
a modern carpenter or mason. There were saws, planes, hammers, chisels, levers,
wedges, even a framing square. There were ropes, mortars, caulks, adhesives,
abrasives, lubricants, measuring lines and levels.

The use of cribbing and wedges, masts, booms, rigging, capstans and counterweights
is evidenced by the boats buried with the pyramid, and indicates some experience
with moving heavy loads around.

As far as their accuracy in measures, look at the way they lay out their hieroglyphics,
everything had to be done according to maat.

Lets begin by allowing that the Egyptians built the pyramids. When you feel that
you are comfortable with that fact, lets move on to discuss how they did it and why.

>>The real question is whether or not, if you were designing the Great Pyramid
>>to incorporate standards of measure and happened to know the length of a
>>year, the circumference of the Earth at the equator, the ratio of a
>>circles diameter to its circumference, all to fairly high degrees of
>>accuracy, whether or not you could work out a better way to relate them all
>Well, personally, I would have written them down.

That's cool. The shelf life of a modern book is less than a human lifetime.

Especially since my
>Great Pyramid was covered by facing stones that would fall off or be looted
>in the future and all the Great Minds of 5,000 years later would base their
>"correlations" on the wrong size of the base.

The sockets for the base remain to preserve the Pyramids corners accurately
while the first row of casing stones preserve the angles of its slant sides.
>You'd love Graham "Kush? Never heard of it" Hancock. Read him. Learn.
>Soon you may become an adept and be ready for the Real Secrets of the
>Ancient Wisdom of the Merovingians.

I found some of what Hancock wrote actually interesting. For example he raises
the question of how the Egyptians cut diorite with copper tools. Answering such
questions gives us a better idea of the people we are talking about here.

The use of powdered diamond or corundum abrasives, rubbed against the stone
by the Egyptians copper saw probably cut the stone as rapidly as any modern
tool could do. A variation on the same technigue was used to hone out thousands
of stone vases, but suggests that additionaly something like a potters wheel
and treadle lathe were used.

You probably are capable of moving beyond your skepticism, why don't you give it a try?

>---Bill "I have discovered the Womb Of Nut. It's Usenet" VanHorne