From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:44:05 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Chris Heiny writes, in part, in response to Zerxes M. Bhagalia:

>>"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."

>How do we know this if almost all of the casing is now missing?

I have to agree with this.  This claim about optical accuracy may be true,
but I find it hard to see how it could be demonstrated.  Likewise it
would be helpful to review the mensuration data on which the claims
for optical bench accuracy of the alignment is based.   Can anyone find
a source that works out the details of either of these claims?  (Let's
look at the source first, and base our judgment of its scientific
accuracy its content, whatever "orthodoxy" may say about the author).

>>Any one with some wooden stakes, some string, and a reasonable idea of
>>the location of the pole star could do the same.

Could anyone with a million seventy ton stone blocks that he was
required to cut out of distant mountains, transport finish, haul, move
into place, and cement do the same?  And do it not once but several
times?

>>If you choose an arbitrary unit, you can measure anything so it comes out
>>as a function of pi and 365.242.  You could define a Sacred Stadia so that
>>an ancient hippodrome is exactly pi stadia around if you wanted.  This proves
>>nothing.

If the sacred stadia and cubit were widely used measures then their precise
incorporation into the structure of the pyramids is not a circular or self
defining thing.  Likewise, if the same proportions hold sway to the same
degree of accuracy in just two pyramids, then that reveals an impressive
precision and purpose in their design and construction. However, both the
units of measure and the actual measurements of the pyramids needs some 
kind of verification.  Zerxes, can you help us here?

>"Next, a fine cement was then run into these joints

>>Do any of you people ever consider the idea of placing the cement before 
>>setting the blocks?

This may have been impossible, considering that the new block was 70 tons
in weight.  Moving and precisely aligning the block after it had been 
cemented might have taken too long so that the cement dried, especially
considering that two sides had to be aligned and cemented simultaneously.
This is a speculation, but certainly there must be expert documentation on
the problem from legitimate sources.  Can you provide this, Zerxes? Also,
Is there cement between the blocks on one layer and the layer above?  And
what do we know about the composition and properties of the cement?

Please avoid the inflamatory "you people".  Respond to Zerxes statements.
Everyone has their own point of view.

Also, you left out the rest of Zerxes's sentence:

>so expertly as to give an even coverage of areas as big as five 
>feet by seven.

The significance here is a technical question for an expert in masonry.
I recall reading about the astounding precision of the cutting, joining,
and cementing in college texts that were completely orthodox.  I.e.
even egyptologists who firmly believe that the pyramids were tombs have
marveled at the masonry. Can anyone enlighten us here?

>>Has anyone ever found a flying saucer in one?

No, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the pyramids were
not used to garage flying saucers, just as the absence of a mummy
or any signs of one ever having been there is evidence that they
weren't used as tombs.  Aside from the fact that you turned your own 
logic against yourself, this remark is really a flame. Zerxes said nothing 
about flying saucers.  He speaks for himself, he is not one of "you
people".

In sum, I think we do need some real concrete evidence about the
measurement, the precision of alignment, and the construction. Everything
so far, including my own assertions, has been just that, assertions. Most
of us are amateurs.  Same for the traditionalist side of this debate.  If
the numbers and the construction really do show evidence of the difficulty
and complexity these statements claim for the pyramids, then we have
grounds to continue. 

Certainly more than one technically competent examiner of the pyramids has
expressed astonishment at their construction, without looking to the left
or to the right as far as drawing any conclusions about how or for what
it was done.  Can anyone provide a reference?

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)