Re: Pyramidiocy (was Re: Strange Maths)

Paul Schlyter (pausch@electra.saaf.se)
28 Jul 1995 19:39:43 +0200

In article <3v314u$j69@shore.shore.net>, Whittet <Whittet@shore.net> wrote:

>>To begin with, Charles Piazzy Smyth (prof. of Edinburgh University,
>>Astronomer-Royal of Scotland) discovered that the base of the Pyramid
>>divided by the width of a casing stone, equaled exactly 365 -- the
>>number of days in a year.
>
>Wrong. Taylor working from the measurements of Howard Vyse,
>discovered that the perimeter of the base measured in english
>inches gave a number that was very close to the number of days
>in a century.

Well, the pyramid base divided by 25 inches happens to be a number
close to 365. Are you claiming that Smyth, who looked for such
coincidences for many years, overlooked this "fact" ??

>> Casing stones originally composed the outside surface of the monument.
>
>A true statement, and about the only one in this post !

A sweeping generalization of your part -- if true it would for
instance imply that the measres given for the Washington Monument
were all, or at least, mostly, wrong. Did you mean this? If so,
please supply the correct measures. Or didn't you mean this? If
so, please refrain from such sweeping generalizations -- they're
bond to be wrong anyway.

>>The stone measured slightly more than 25 inches, and Smyth
>>concluded that this length was none other than the sacred cubit.
>
>Wrong. It was Sir Isaac Newton who drew this conclusion.

This may very well be true -- but did that prevent Smyth from
drawing the same conclusion ???

[ stuff deleted ]

>Isn't associating these discoveries with Smyth instead of Taylor and Newton,
>because Smyth can be associated with odd ideas, a manipulation of the data?

If I had claimed that Smyth discovered this, yes. But I didn't -- I only
said he concluded this. Please note the difference. And please try
to distinguish your fantasies from what people actually write!!!

>>There is also a vast occult literature dealing with the Pyramid,
>>expecially in Rosicrucian and theosophical traditions. The Biblical
>>prophecies of Smyth are rejected but the authors find in the monument
>>a great deal of mathematical, scientific, astrological, and occult
>>symbolism which varies widely with individual writers. According to
>>Madame Blavatsky, the interior of the Pyramid was used for the
>>performance of the sacred rituals connected with the Egyptian "Book
>>of the Dead", and most theosophists today assume there are vast
>>mysteries of some sort connected with the stone monument that are
>>known only to initiates.
>
>...Some people with strange ideas are unduly impressed with the
>Great pyramid, therefore all study of it has been by crackpots
>and can be safely dismissed.

Your conclusion, not mine .....

>>As worthless as all this literature is, it is not entirely worthless
>>if we can see in it an important object lesson. No book has ever
>>demonstrated more clearly than Smyth's (the other Pyramid books, of
>>course, to a lesser degree) how easy it is to work over an undigested
>>mass of data and emerge with a pattern, which at first glance, is so
>>intricately put together that it is difficult to believe it is
>>nothing more than the product of a man's brain. In a sense, this is
>>true of almost all the books of pseudo-scientists. In one way or
>>another, they do not let the data speak for themselves. Consciously
>>or unconsciously, their preconceived dogmas twist and mold the
>>objective facts into forms which support the dogmas, but have no
>>basis in the exterior world.
>
>
> Sir Flinders Petrie, a famous
>>archeologist who made some highly exact Pyramid measurements, reports
>>that he once caught a Pyramidologist secretly filing down a projecting
>>stone to make it conform to one of his theories!
>
>
>Isn't this exactly what debunkers are doing when they improperly attribute
>the conclusions of Sir Isaac Newton to Smyth,

Are tou trying to say that Smyth disagreed with Newton on the cubit ?

>and then make Smyth out to be an oddball,

He WAS an oddball!

>associate all study of the pyramid with the occult and conclude that
>all literature on the subject of the great pyramid is worthless?

Once again, this is your conclusion, not mine.

Please try to distinguish your fantasies from what others actually
write!!!

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)

Nybrogatan 75 A,  S-114 40 Stockholm,  SWEDEN

e-mail:  pausch@saaf.se       paul.schlyter@ausys.se