PROOF OF GOD

Great Pyramid of Giza Research AssociationI just want to inform the debate that all of the wonderful photos contained in this site are from Dr. Rutherford's "Pyramidology" four volume of books.The caucasian gentleman in the photos is Dr. Adam Rutherford.

Don't know if you were planning to get to it later or just missed it, but you're replying to newer messages now, so in case you missed it, Message 591.--Percy

In this case you don't "prove" the height with geometry you simply calculate it from given inputs as Percy has shown.The measurement of the inputs is important. That is the part that needs to be laid out in great detail to determine if the height calculation is correct.The Petrie information shows how hard this is to do with any degree of precision. Certainly, it sounds like the precision that Rutherford is claiming appears to be impossible.You have not yet given the details of how the measurements were done so we can't know how precise the measurements could have been done.I might also ask how you are coming with the LLM measurements. That is actually a simpler thing to work with since we don't have to talk about an inch one way or the other. It appears we have hundreds of miles to talk about. It might be possible to clear that one up unequivocably.You give figures for some measurements of pyramid parts to within 1,000's of an inch. That also appears to be making up precision that isn't very meaningful but it would require a great deal of detail to see if that is true or not.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-20-2004 10:14 AM

The diagram/image was produced by Rutherford.Full-design = ABCD = perfectly square base platform, based upon original foundation sockets.LMNO = perfectly square base platform as actually built. THIS perimeter is the circuit square from which the limestone casing stones were stripped.When they were stripped, this revealed the hollowed in masonry.SWXTYZU pi symbol triangle symbol VQI [Note: the two symbols do not represent any mathematical purpose] = Base of core masonry.Go here and view the very photo which is credited for discovering the slight concavity:http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.htmlBTW:AB = 365.242 Sacred Cubits (SC = 25 PI") = number of days in Solar Tropical Year.AEFB = 365.256 SC = number of days in Sidereal YearAbB = 365.259 SC = number of days in Anomalistic Year ("b" obscured between "w" and "x")These amazing in-built measurement facts would never be known unless casing stones were stripped. I have already excerpted Lemesurier invoking Diodorus confirming no capstone, but he, as Rutherford, do not footnote. However, here are the footnotes:Diodorus [Liber I, 63-64]Pliny the Elder "Historia Naturalis", Book 36. You understand concavity correctly.

The figures provided, prove the height, via geometry.Rhetorically speaking, how are the calculations wrong ?This blue box comment seems to define "calculate" to be an imprecise method.Given the total circuit base perimeter and the slope angle results in a precise convergence point/figure.Peter Lemesurier corroborates both Rutherford and Cole. This equates to a three source unit of agreement. Lemesurier in 2000, Cole in 1925, and Rutherford in 1957.Because Dr.Scott's research is all oral I have not invoked him, but he confirms Rutherford. (this is an unsupported assertion)Rutherford is not perfect in all his research. For example, he takes the prophetic chronograph down to single days. Dr. Scott says there is no reliable way to determine single days when an inch equals a year - you can only slice an inch so small before error must be respected. Other people take this criticism and transfer it to the physical measurements to also not be possible to the same degree.Rutherford has Christ crucified on Friday, but Dr. Scott has proven Christ died on Wednesday (Hi Brian, we already debated this to no avail)My point is that small controversies like this are seized upon to toss everything into the "no way to know for sure" bin. In 1881 Petrie was the first to employ "modern surveying tools" that could measure in the thousands. Cole was measuring in the tens of thousands 44 years later, and Rutherford the same in the 50's and 60's. I have already excerpted Peter Lemesurier and his objective comments about the measuring of the GP.I have no source to offer for how professional surveyors actually perform their science. Ned, I have posted the complete claim of my sources.The quadrants are approximate, and the Middle East is called as such because it is the middle of the world and the Nile Delta is the center and the GP is the precise center.You say 300 hundred miles apart - could you tell me where this location is ?

Gentlemen I have discovered a website that is dealing with the same two people that Willowtree admires so much[Dr.scott and Dr. Rutherford] and danged if there aren't the occasional discrpencies.Perhaps we can all take a look and find out wazzup?http://www.19x19lc.com/0intro.htmThis message has been edited by sidelined, 07-20-2004 11:49 PM

[qs=Ned]I might also ask how you are coming with the LLM measurements. [qs] That was given you more than once many, many posts ago. It is about 10 degrees west of the GP and some hundreds of miles longer.If what you have supplied is the complete evidence then we can drop the LLM claim. It is wrong. No, calculate is fine it is not imprecise in itself. It is the measurement of the input values that are imprecies. Percy's example shows you how that is all done in the appropriate way. So far we have nothing but unsubstantiated assertions about the perimeter and so on. No one has said how Rutherford arrived at his measurements. How he chose the spots he did etc.It seems there may not be enough information available to substantiate Rutherford or to totally tear him down. That is one reason why I'm interested in the LLM. It appears clearer and might be one which will allow us to arrive at some sort of conclusion.In other words, we can do the measurements ourselves. We can't go to the GP and check things for ourselves. But we can take maps and measure meridians. I'm waiting for your measurements. In fact the measurements can't be made to within less than a few inches if you are trying to get to something that isn't there any more. I'm glad Dr. Scott recognizes that. That is why I think the height issue isn't going to be resolved. Rutherford doesn't give us enough information to determine the actual precision that can be expected from his methods.You can't get to the 10,000ths of an inch when measuring something that is rougher than that AND not even there any more! Geeez.

Contents deleted, new message coming soon.This message has been edited by Percy, 07-21-2004 12:26 PM

Now I think I understand. Rutherford's numbers are not for the pyramid actually built, but for some hypothetical pyramid he claims was the original design. That explains why his figures do not agree with Petrie's, but it leaves these questions:

1. Why does Rutherford think there was originally a different design than what was actually built?
   ​
2. What is Rutherford's evidence for the dimensions of the hypothetical original design?
   ​
3. What do calculations on the hypothetical original design have to do with the height of the capstone platform of the pyramid actually built?

About measurements to the 10,000th of an inch, I think you have some thinking to do on this topic. Nosy and I keep bringing this up, but it hasn't sunk in yet. You cannot measure huge objects like pyramids to a 10,000th of an inch using surveyor techniques. Even if you had a small square unpolished granite paperweight that you wanted to measure as accurately as possible, you couldn't do it to a 10,000th of an inch because granite is not anywhere near that smooth. The best you could hope for is maybe a 100th of an inch. Now scale these difficulties up to blocks the size used in the pyramid and piled nearly a tenth of a mile high. If you get error bars less than an inch you'd be doing terrific.--Percy

And it was supposed to have been built some hundreds of miles west of where it ended up. This is starting to get a bit silly isn't it? But it's been fun.

For the record, the evidence posted most recently covered this.Because there are five socket stones clearly visible in the bedrock platform of what is called the "full-design". This full-design circuit square perimeter and its measurements have been posted.These sockets exist today and are plainly visible. The lower diagram in post 604 traces the perimeter of these stones. The total square circuit perimeter is exactly 286.102 PI" larger than the as-built total square perimeter platform.286.1 PI" is also the distance from center/to the left - that the original swivel door and descending passage is.286.1 PI" is also the distance from the Well Shaft's lower end opening TO the point where the pit has its first drop down.Using the measurements of the total square perimeter/full-design AND the angle/slope as-built MEANS the capstone of a full-design GP would of overlapped the summit platform/203rd course of the as-built design by exactly 286.1 PI"286.1 PI" is also the exact height of the expansion of the Grand Gallery WHERE the top end of the Well Shaft meets the Grand Gallery.The Well Shaft is the type/symbol of the Resurrection of Christ, as it, the place where it breaks into the Grand Gallery is 33 AD in the inch to a year prophetic chronograph.This meaning is inescapable: ONLY the death and Resurrection of Christ RECTIFIES the "going left error"/type of sin. The Grand Gallery expands upward exactly 286.1 PI" - thus the Architect clearly portrays the message of the Bible that the death of His Son is the grace which can eliminate the penalty of sin. If you mean the full-design, then those figures have been posted.Here they are again: 9131.05+ PI" = total square base perimeter of 36524.2+ PI" + the angle of slope of 51 degrees 51' 14.3" = a height of 5813 PI". I assume you are asserting subjectively.This is why I base my claims and conclusions on sources and their evidence.I understand what you are saying.Petrie measured in thousands in 1881, then Cole in the tens in 1925, and Rutherford in the tens in the 1950's. If you accept, to whatever degree Petrie's measurements, then you must accept that the profession, like any other, progressed in its technology and ability.Lemesurier says the GP has been professionally surveyed ad nauseum.Petrie, Cole, Edgar Brothers, David Davidson (a person Dr. Scott calls a genius's genius) and Rutherford are all professional surveyors.Percy:I do not know anything about the nuts and bolts of surveying. I haven't even tried to crash course myself in lieu of this question being on the table for some time now.If the ability to measure in the tens exists (and it does) then you are saying the GP is the exception.I'm sorry, you need a source for this claim.The root of this criticism is really calling Rutherford a liar/genius fraud ONLY because the data evidences the Divine claims.Lemesurier evidences how Cole and Rutherford are in perfect agreement even though they surveyed the GP at least 25 years apart.I have [edit:four] sources that I am able to offer which evidence my claims.Lemesurier really takes no "biased" position in his book. He relates a "poker face" in his writings and actually reports the veracity of my claims while "yawning" about their meaning.If you say Rutherford is a fraud, that he made it up, then Cole is somehow mistaken and Lemesurier is also "in on it".If you say Rutherford is incorrect - then fine - show me.If you want to dismiss Rutherford's data then you are calling him a liar and I wish you or someone would of told me in the beginning that no amount of evidence matters.The preceding 100 years or so has opponents refuting this evidence by asserting "fraud", while offering no evidence to demonstrate fraud. This "refutation" is not a refutation, but a recognition of the inability to disprove the evidence.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 07-22-2004 03:22 PM

Piazzi Smyth is the source of the center claim - not Rutherford.You disagree with Smyth, you stated your reasons, other web sites agree with you, and of course many agree with Smyth.You need to produce a preponderance of evidence which refutes Smyth.I think we both can agree that ring-around-the-rosy is over.

Sorry, I lost track of who was making what cliams.Lindum produced the only evidence we have for this. That is the preponderance until you produce some more. The LLM claim is wrong. It is over if you now agree that the LLM claim is unsupported and appears to be wrong. When that falls we should be suspicious of the unsupported LLP and center of area claims as well.I hope you have learned something about not taking the assertions of individuals as being particularly meaningful unless they supply something that allows you to check on them. Smyth, at least, is a fake that makes assertions without foundation.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-22-2004 03:43 PM

Oh? I remember from his methods that he had errors greater than 1,000ths and gave the height with error bars of about a foot. Would you like to show me where he measured to 1,000ths? Please supply the details. Were the sockets measured from center to center? How perfectly circular are they? Getting the distances to with 1,000ths would require them to be circular and placed very, very accurately. You haven't shown that this is the case.In fact, you haven't shown (that I remember) how Rutherford used those to determine measuremens. This is what you should have supplied 500 posts ago. Just exactly what "evidence" have you given? I still don't recall anything but assertions with no back up at all. Perhaps you can refresh me in a succinct form in a summarization post.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-22-2004 06:05 PM

That's an interesting idea, but Petrie believed the socket stones were placed to receive the facing stones. The casing was continued below pavement level to the socket stones: He searched for evidence that his theory was true, and he found it: Not only was there no "original plan" for the Great Pyramid, there is no way to obtain the dimensions of something that doesn't exist, and even if there was, it would have no relevance to the existing structure.Concerning accuracy to a 10,000th of an inch: Not according to what's available on the net (e.g., Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh: Ch. 6, Outside of Great Pyramid). He appears to have measured to the nearest 10th of an inch.I wish you would think about this issue a little. Consider how you would measure a stone paperweight or a book to a 10,000th of an inch. The irregularities of the materials and manufacturing processes are far greater than a 10,000th of an inch, and then there's the problem of the measuring tools themselves. Just take a ruler and try to measure anything on your desk to a 10,000th of an inch - it can't be done. It wouldn't be my style to call anyone a liar. As I said in an earlier post, it would make as much sense to call a numerology enthusiast a liar as it would an astrologer. They believe in what they do, they just happen to be wrong.--Percy