Summations Only

From wiki:

The first precision measurements of the pyramid were done by Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie in 1880–82 and published as The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh.[5] Almost all reports are based on his measurements. Many of the casing stones and inner chamber blocks of the Great Pyramid were fit together with extremely high precision. Based on measurements taken on the north eastern casing stones, the mean opening of the joints is only 0.5 millimetres wide (1/50th of an inch).

The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have an average error of only 58 millimetres in length.[8] The base is horizontal and flat to within 21 mm.[9] The sides of the square base are closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points (within 4 minutes of arc)[10] based on true north, not magnetic north,[11] and the finished base was squared to a mean corner error of only 12 seconds of arc.[12] The completed design dimensions, as suggested by Petrie's survey and subsequent studies, are estimated to have originally been 280 cubits high by 440 cubits long at each of the four sides of its base. The ratio of the perimeter to height of 1760/280 cubits equates to 2ð to an accuracy of better than 0.05% (corresponding to the well-known approximation of ð as 22/7). Some Egyptologists consider this to have been the result of deliberate design proportion. Verner wrote, "We can conclude that although the ancient Egyptians could not precisely define the value of ð, in practice they used it".[13] Petrie, author of Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh concluded: "but these relations of areas and of circular ratio are so systematic that we should grant that they were in the builder's design".[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

Im not trying to debate the Great pyramid here at all. Im simply saying it's so great an accomplishment that no one would believe they built it back when they did if it wasn't still there and only documented in few texts.

Why are people having a hard time understanding the comparison?

Some say the Great pyramid is in the bible too.

“In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof... And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt.” —Isaiah 19:19-20

That is from this link http://www.biblestudents.com/endtimesarchives_sum99.cfm

There is more but this isn't about the GP, only to show that when it comes to the Bible no matter what, it's denied but things we can see, are not.

Im not trying to debate the Great pyramid here at all.

Maybe, though, there's a sort of lesson to be learned here about not citing articles that are completely wrong.

Im simply saying it's so great an accomplishment that no one would believe they built it back when they did if it wasn't still there and only documented in few texts.

Yes, but since you can't read the minds of people in alternate realities this is pretty much of an empty assertion.

There is more but this isn't about the GP, only to show that when it comes to the Bible no matter what, it's denied but things we can see, are not.

Things we can see are not denied? Tut tut, what is the world coming to?

As for the Bible, what's with the "no matter what"? It's not like we're being skeptical about something plausible. When I'm told a story which, according to all reason couldn't happen, and which according to all the evidence didn't happen, then I'm skeptical.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Im not trying to debate the Great pyramid here at all. Im simply saying it's so great an accomplishment that no one would believe they built it back when they did if it wasn't still there and only documented in few texts.

Why are people having a hard time understanding the comparison?

---

Because you are citing false claims that make it seem MORE amazing that it really is. For instance the assertion that it is the first of the Pyramids, which is completely false. The Egyptians worked their way up to building it from simpler structures, making mistakes along the way. Using a highly inaccurate article that exaggerates the point you are trying to make is a pretty bad mistake.

quote:

---

Some say the Great pyramid is in the bible too.

“In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof... And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt.” —Isaiah 19:19-20

---

And they are being silly. Isaiah is clearly talking about a situation in his future, but the Great Pyramid was old when Isaiah was written.

So the lesson here is try not to use silly assertions as evidence. It only hurts your case - at least it will here, where people are bound to notice your error.

Well, it's really all I know about the GP. I did a few quick searches and came up with these articles. Im not sure about ALL the exact information in them of course, I just know it's an amazing feat what was accomplished. That really is my point, not that the GP is in line with the universe blah blah...

The wiki article is probably more correct than most, as is always the case with wiki

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Maybe, though, there's a sort of lesson to be learned here about not citing articles that are completely wrong.

Im not sure how accurate the articles were on the GP. I'll have to do more research on them, but my comparison wasn't meant to mislead. I did a few searcxhes and a lot of the info on the GP is the same.

My point was it was a great accomplishment.

When I'm told a story which, according to all reason couldn't happen, and which according to all the evidence didn't happen,

LOL. What evidence says the Ark was never built? Nor ever floated?

Might I suggest that you learn to vet your sources. Wikipedia is not too bad - in fact usually reliable so long as the subject is not contentious (e.g. there were reports of Sarah Palin fans trying to edit Wikipedia to include her mistaken claims about Paul Revere's ride). I've cited Wikipedia myself, quite often but I do try to be careful - I have run across the occasional case where a biased individual has tried to insert dubious claims.

But there's a lot of nonsense written about the Great Pyramid - and Art Bell is a purveyor of nonsense, so the fact that the article came from his publication should be a big red flag.

Im not sure how accurate the articles were on the GP. I'll have to do more research on them, but my comparison wasn't meant to mislead. I did a few searcxhes and a lot of the info on the GP is the same.

This is because misinformation gets passed around from crank to crank without them checking it. Kind of like creationist arguments ...

I'll debunk some of the sillier bits if you like.

LOL. What evidence says the Ark was never built? Nor ever floated?

I was talking about the story as a whole, not just the bit where someone built a big boat.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

PaulK writes: and Art Bell is a purveyor of nonsense, so the fact that the article came from his publication should be a big red flag.

My goodness, im an idiot and will take my lumps. What else can I do. I had no idea it was a publication from Art Bell.

I made a mistake.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Dr A writes: This is because misinformation gets passed around from crank to crank without them checking it. Kind of like creationist arguments ...

Yeah, I am noticing this. That's why I said I need to become a geologist myself.

There is SO much info on the GP. A lot of it references pii etc etc...some of it has to be true. Can you provide a link to an accurate site for it?

Or is there a thread already that talks about it? Maybe we can go there and discuss it?

There is SO much info on the GP. A lot of it references pii etc etc...some of it has to be true.

Well, it's definitely a pyramid and it's certainly great. That much is true.

I've picked out some of the more obviously silly aspects of the passages you quoted (I haven't looked at the whole article because my brain might die). Let's have a look, shall we?

Only a solid stone mountain could endure the Pyramid's immense weight. And indeed, a flat solid granite mountain happens to be located just beneath the surface of the ground directly under the Pyramid.

Actually, what lies just under the Great Pyramid is limestone. In a flash of actual Ancient Wisdom, the Egyptians realized that if you want to build something out of limestone, it's a good idea to build it somewhere where there's plenty of limestone.

It is true that if you dig down far enough you would hit granite, but this is true anywhere on continental crust, so the only way for this not to be true would be if the Egyptians had built the Pyramids at the bottom of the sea.

The Pyramid is located at the exact center of the Earth's land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth, passing through Africa, Asia, and America. Similarly, the longest land meridian on Earth, through Asia, Africa, Europa, and Antarctica, also passes right through the Pyramid. Since the Earth has enough land area to provide 3 billion possible building sites for the Pyramid, the odds of it's having been built where it is are 1 in 3 billion

I don't know of an easy way to check if this claim is true. A glance at a globe suggests that Egypt might indeed fit this description. However, the odds of the Egyptians building the pyramids in Egypt are not 1 in 3 billion. It might almost be considered a certainty.

Other numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24.

If this was true, then measuring the length of the solar year to five significant figures would have been the least of their achievements. Much more impressive would be their ability to travel forward in time to read the Weights And Measures Act of 1824 and to calibrate their instruments against the standard yard (kept in Guildhall, London) to ensure that they would be expressing the length of the year according to a standard of measurement which wouldn't be fixed for several thousand years.

However, it is not in fact true.

The height of the Pyramid's apex is 5,812.98 inches [...] The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites and computers, happens to be 5,449 inches. That is the exact height of the Pyramid.

I think they should make up their minds. The height of the Pyramid appears to vary by over 30 feet depending on what they want to prove about it. Did you not notice this?

A google search shows that there are 6,730 websites which mention both figures as the height of the pyramid. Somewhere, Tim Berners-Lee is crying.

The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites and computers, happens to be 5,449 inches. That is the exact height of the Pyramid.

But the average height of land above sea level is in fact 841 meters, which is over 33,000 inches.

All four sides of the Pyramid are very slightly and evenly bowed in, or concave. This effect, which cannot be detected by looking at the Pyramid from the ground, was discovered around 1940 by a pilot taking aerial photos to check certain measurements. As measured by today's laser instruments, all of these perfectly cut and intentionally bowed stone blocks duplicate exactly the curvature of the earth. The radius of this bow is equal to the radius of the Earth.

OK. Let's take Cole's figure of 230,364 mm as the average length of a side. Let the radius of the Earth be ~ 6,371 km = 6,371,000,000 mm. Then using Pythagoras' theorem, we can see that the difference between a completely straight line and the alleged curvature of the sides would be just slightly over 1 mm (1.041 mm, to three decimal places) at the point where it was greatest. And this was supposedly discovered by someone taking aerial photographs in the 1940s?

I'm not buying it, especially since the base of the Great Pyramid looks like this:

To say that this deviates from a straight line by one millimeter is sheer nonsense. It's so eroded that even if it did once no-one would be able to tell now.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You could measure 4 millimeters of curvature ...

I think I know what you've done here, and the other given side of the right-angled triangle is half the length of the side of the Pyramid.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I had no idea it was a publication from Art Bell.

You missed the whole copyright thing right under the title and subtitle?

quote:

---

This
article was
republished for the
Internet with permission by
Art Bell. The article first appeared in
Art Bell's newsletter, AFTER DARK Vol.1 No.2
February 1995 ~ DREAMLAND REPORT, which is available
by calling 1 800 917-4-ART, so start your subscription today. Subscription:
$39.95 per year and well worth the investment. Visit Art Bell's home page for more
information and an updated list of his syndicated Radio Show COAST TO COAST and DREAMLAND.

---

You need to learn some skills if you want to be taken seriously.
Learn to read critically and learn to vet your sources.

The Pyramid is located at the exact center of the Earth's land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth, passing through Africa, Asia, and America. Similarly, the longest land meridian on Earth, through Asia, Africa, Europa, and Antarctica, also passes right through the Pyramid. Since the Earth has enough land area to provide 3 billion possible building sites for the Pyramid, the odds of it's having been built where it is are 1 in 3 billion I don't know of an easy way to check if this claim is true. A glance at a globe suggests that Egypt might indeed fit this description. However, the odds of the Egyptians building the pyramids in Egypt are not 1 in 3 billion. It might almost be considered a certainty.

Well, Ray Martinez (AKA Cold Foreign Object AKA WIllowtree) is a GP woo-ist, and the length of the longest land meridian has a thread of its own here: Longest Land Meridian. And, of course, the meridian claim is false.

See also Amazing Pyramid "Facts".

Chuck77 writes: If anything this gives the probablility of the Ark existing as much as the Great pyramids existance.

Wrong. The probability of the Great Pyramids having existed is 100%. The probability of the ark having existed is much less.

Wrong. Perhaps in your opinion the probability of the ark's existence is much less. But that is based on a very unclear view of the Bible and of history. If what you know about the Bible were really all that we today could know about it and the accounts it contains, then your figuring would possibly be correct. The ark's probability would be considerably less. However your lack of understanding of the Bible's historical accuracy does not mean that the rest of us should see the ark's probability of existence as any less than that of the pyramids existence.

However I believe Chuck's point is that you can't use the fact that some think men in Noah's day didn't have the technological know-how to build the boat he built with the dimensions and requirements he had to adhere to to rule out its existence, since the pyramids show the use, thousands of years ago, of technology and geological understanding which is likely beyond that of modern man. There are other cases of colossally huge stones perfectly fitted together centuries ago which still exist and surpass the technical know-how of modern man (in South America).

DubyaDeeEm writes: Wrong. Perhaps in your opinion the probability of the ark's existence is much less. But that is based on a very unclear view of the Bible and of history. If what you know about the Bible were really all that we today could know about it and the accounts it contains, then your figuring would possibly be correct. The ark's probability would be considerably less. However your lack of understanding of the Bible's historical accuracy does not mean that the rest of us should see the ark's probability of existence as any less than that of the pyramids existence.

Your opinion has been noticed.

DubyaDeeEm writes: However I believe Chuck's point is that you can't use the fact that some think men in Noah's day didn't have the technological know-how to build the boat he built with the dimensions and requirements he had to adhere to to rule out its existence, since the pyramids show the use, thousands of years ago, of technology and geological understanding which is likely beyond that of modern man. There are other cases of colossally huge stones perfectly fitted together centuries ago which still exist and surpass the technical know-how of modern man (in South America).

It is a shame that you wasted all your time posting that when you could have read the subsequent posts and learned that you are repeating made-up bullshit.
Even Chuck77 retracts his statements regarding the supernatural aspects of the Great Pyramids.

Please: read more - learn more - post less bollocks.