From: jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette)
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 03:56:08 GMT

This was posted to sci.archaeology as part of a thread 
discussing NOVA's Nov 3rd program on pyramids.  I am posting
this to sci.skeptic and again to sci.archaeology along with
some data that is of interest to this topic.  Sci.skeptic is 
the proper home for the discussion of psuedo-science theories 
such as this one.

In article <Bxyq15.6zL@acsu.buffalo.edu> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar) writes:

>"The natural tendency of a traditionally trained archeologist is to
>fit his finds into the fashionable preconcieved matrix of ideas
>regarding the shape of prehistory that it is a long, slow, upward
>gradient leading inexorably from primitive man to the summit of modern
>society's achievements.  It is his very ability to do so that has
>gained him his qualifications as an archeologist.  Consequently, had
>earlier civilizations left behind aircraft runways, say, then it is
>likely that they would be classified as 'ritual causeways'; an
>earth-and-stone-built chamber for screening off radioactive waste or
>machinery would of course take on an unintended role as a 'tomb'; an
>astronomical observatory-cum-computer would immediately start a new
>life as a temple; and skyward-facing navigational markings for
>airships would become 'magic designs for the appeasement of the
>gods'." -unknown author
>
>I believe that this is precisely the case with regards to the Great
>Pyramid of Giza.  Lets consider the facts, shall we?
>
>The pyramid stones, some of which weighed up to 70 tons, were so
>finely cut and positioned as to give joints of less than a fiftieth of
>an inch in thickness.  Not to mention that the tools employed by the
>Egyptians, at the time, were not of sufficient hardness to even dent
>some of the types of stone used in the construction.  Next, a fine
>cement was then run into these joints so expertly as to give an even
>coverage of areas as big as five feet by seven.  The pyramid's now
>almost totally despoiled original outer casing of polished limestone
>(all twenty-one acres of it) was levelled and honed to the standard of
>accuracy normal in modern optical work.
>
>As a geodetic marker and an orbital observatory, the Great Pyramid is
>so perfectly oriented with the cardinal directions that modern
>compasses are adjusted to it.  Furthermore, this spectacular pyramid
>is sited at the exact center of the geometrical quadrant formed by the
>Nile Delta.  Using the Sacred Cubit, nearly every one of the Pyramid's
>basic external and internal measurements can be expressed as a
>function of the quantity pi and 365.242.  The quantity pi, by the way,
>had supposedly not been discovered yet, and 365.242 is the number of
>days in the solar tropical year.  And lastly, though archeologists all
>consider the pyramid to be a tomb, not one corpse has ever been found
>within the structure, nor is there any evidence to indicate that their
>ever were.
>
>                          
>                                   .'|`.                                      
>_________________________________.'-{*}-`.____________________________________
>Zerxes M. Bhagalia              '----|----` INT: v064lnev@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
>State University of New York .---------------.    bhaga-z@acsu.buffalo.edu
>  at Buffalo               .'                 `.  News Director, WFFT 104.9 FM
>Political Science        .'                     `. Justice, SA Judiciary (SWJ)
>Computer Science       .'________MDCCLXXVI________`. Computer Consultant (UCS)
>-------------------N O V U S   O R D O   S E C L O R U M----------------------

Hello.  I reflowed your text. 

I do not know enough to comment on every point you raise, but I do have 
some facts from some books that refute some of your claims.  The first 
is "The Pyramids and Temples of Ghizeh" by Sir William Flinders Petrie.
(2nd edition London: Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd., 1990, This is a
reprint of the 1885 book published by the Royal Society.  The first 
edition was published in 1883.)  

Petrie has been called the "Father of modern Egyptology".  The data
I list here will be from his book, but the data is very good. Later
survey's by J.H. Cole in 1925 and modern surveys by legitimate research
organizations such as the American Research Center in Egypt and others
all confirm the accuracy of Petrie's original survey data.

The other books are Peter Tompkins, "Secrets of the Great Pyramid"
(New York:Harper & Row, 1971).  This book is a psuedo-science book.  It 
is still in print, and it has some value because the author gives much
of the history of pyramidology pseudo-science.  There is also E. Raymond
Capt's books, "The Great Pyramid Decoded" and "Study in Pyramidology"
(Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Artisan Sales, 1986).  The first Capt book was 
given out by TV evangelist Gene Scott who promotes several pseudo-
science theories to his followers.

The "sacred cubit" that the poster refers mentions is not a measure
used by the ancient Egyptians.  It is the product of the imaginations
of two 1860 pyramidologists, John Taylor who wrote a book "The Great
Pyramid: Why Was it Built?  And Who Built It?" and Piazzi Smyth who 
wrote after Taylor in the 1860's "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid."

These two were Anglo-Israelites who believe that the white peoples of 
northwest Europe, particularly those of Great Britain and the U.S are
the descendants of the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel.  According to them
the pyramid was built by some Biblical patriarch such as Job or Enoch.
The pyramid allegedly encodes statistics about the form and measure
of the earth and also contains a map of Bible history and future 
prophecy.

The sacred cubit equals 25 inches.  The claim is that the ancient 
builders of the pyramid (not the Egyptians - they were too dumb) built
the pyramid using English! units of measure.  To be sure the inch 
unit did change some over the years.  The primitive or "pyramid inch"
is 1.00106 British inches.  The fudge factor evolved because the 
early (1830s) estimates of the pyramid baselines were 9140 inches to 
a side.  Multiply that by 4 and you get 36,560 inches as the sum of 
all four baselines.  Well, fudge the inch a little and invent a sacred 
cubit of 25 inches and (viola!) the baseline of the pyramid is 365.242 
sacred cubits, a figure equal to the length of the solar year in days.
This idea was invented by John Taylor over 130 years ago.

Latter day pyramid peddlers will measure the baselines from some 
"socket" corners that extend a little further out from the edges of 
the pyramid.

The early estimates of the baselines were not accurate.  This is 
because by the 1800's almost of the original casing stones that once 
covered the pyramid had been stripped leaving only the core masonry
that we see today.  When Petrie did his survey in 1881, he was able 
to recover casing stones buried under 12 to 20 feet of debris right at 
the pyramid base on all four sides.  His measurements of baselines and 
distances between the socket corners are as follows (+-0.1 in):

  SIDE  BASELINE (in)   SOCKET (in)    CORE (in) 
    
   N      9069.4          9129.8        9002.3
   E      9067.7          9130.8        8999.4
   S      9069.5          9123.9        9001.7
   W      9068.6          9119.2        9002.5

All of these lengths are much to short to match any of claims made
by the pyramidologists concerning the years in a day idea.

The pi ratio in the pyramid is derived from the ratio of the 
pyramid baseline divided by the height.  The average baseline 
is 9,068.8.  Divide this by the height (5776 +- 7 inches) and you
get 1.5701.  This value times two is 3.1402.  A better approximation
of pi is obtained using the angle of the slope of the faces of the 
pyramid.  The angle for the north slope according to Petrie is 
51 deg. 50 min. 40 sec. +- 1 min. 5 sec.  The same ratios in a 
pyramid with this angle yield a value of 3.1427+-0.002.  

Petrie believed this feature was accidental.  The Egyptians, he
said, chose to build the pyramid using a sloping angle that
was 11 at the base and 7 at the height.  11/7 is 1.5714.  Times
that by two and you get 3.1429 which is just about exactly
the angle of the sloping stones.
                             .
                           .'|`.        Thanx to our poster           
                         .'  |  `.         for the nice pyramid       
                       .'    |    `.          picture.                   
                     .'      |      `.                               
                   .'      7 |        `.                               
                 .'          |          `.                             
               .'____________|____________`.                          
               <----------- 11 ------------>

Pyramidologists make other claims about pi and the year measures
in other parts of the pyramid.  Suffice it to say, Petrie's data
shows all those other claims are also not correct.  

I am not an archaeologist and know only little about ancient 
Egypt, but this subject I researched some because some Christian
friends of mine were believing this nonsense.  As a Christian
believer myself, I wished to help counter this stuff.

I do not know enough to refute (or verify) the other claims you make.
My questions are simple:

Where do you get your facts and information?  Can you document
them from primary source material?  My bet is that your sources
are all of doubtful reliability.  Since some of your claims are 
clearly false, why should I believe anything else you say on this 
subject?

John