Mysteries: The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).

Re: Petrie's measurements — forever the best
Author: Jiri Mruzek ()
Date: December 13, 2022 01:44AM
_______________________________________________________________________________

.

At this resolution, the green circle and one side of the green square fit neatly into the Mother Star's position.
.

.

Leonardo da Vinci, Piero della Francesca and Luca Pacioli would love this 'Divina proportione'.
The width of the face (1) extended by (0.618) sets the extent of the white space in the helmet.
The image contains other notable geometric details, whose appreciation is left to the reader.
The blue square is set by the width and the bottom of the face.

 The same square fits 1.5 times into the width of the left foot. Considering the magnification (what you see on your screen is most likely larger than the entire engraving in lifesize), the fit is extremely accurate. There is a vertical line edge marking the exact half of the whole rectangle, and another marking the exact square (from left to right). The latter two lines are connected by a line with one edge perfectly coinciding with a golden diagonal (from an upright golden rectangle). Two more such diagonals rise from the 1/3 and 2/3 points of the rectangle's bottom. These diagonals are perfect tangents to nearby line ends. Another diagonal (from a horizontal golden rectangle) rises from the bottom right corner and is also a perfect limit to the nearest line end. All these tangents are perfect as far as can be seen. Further magnification makes it too hard to see where the actual edges are due to blurriness. Even just by itself, this is an example of immaculately implemented geometric order. Using superlatives in its description cannot be avoided; they are true. . That said, it's time to get to the point _ only after we insert the Giza ground plan into the drawing, we learn that these squares are none other than the square of the Second Pyramid! . At least, that would be the script if I had used my method methodically. In real life, the procedure was reversed — mea culpa. It is a fact that I could have 'divined' the square of the Second Pyramid' on 'your' first principles, although not in its proper position in the Giza plan. Instead, some time after inserting the Giza plan into the engraving, I just tested the square base of G2 — first over the face and then over the feet. Then it worked like a charm! It is Mission Impossible to divine the G2 square into its present Giza position, at least for a human. The actual placement of G2 is the result of creative use of the all-encompassing knowledge by the designers of the potential inherent in the basic position. The Mother Star sets up something like a Chess-board - a deceptively simple field offering a near infinity of logical entanglements. You can analyze a game afterwards - you cannot predict its course after a few opening moves. Onward to G3 - its position is entirely discoverable - unlike G2. Lines a,b,c,d,e as well as lines '1' '2' and 'f' in the diagram below all have golden diagonal angles of the Mother Star system. Lines 'a' and 'b' in combination with line '1' set up a golden rectangle. The golden rectangle based on G3 is one-fourth of this rectangle. (Line 'f' serves as a spectacular confirmation) Once again, although discoverable, I have not discovered G3 by analysis. Elon Musk says of the former world chess champion Kasparov - "He plays chess almost as well as my I-phone!" Similarly, one day soon, an I-phone will tell me about all I had missed in my analysis :)

 quote: In fact, Petrie may have been aware of the problem. In Chapter XXI of The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, Petrie compares his measurements to the earlier work by Watson and Gill. Where both had measured common baselines, Watson and Gill’s measurements were longer than Petrie’s by 1 part in 4500. If Watson and Gill were correct, the Petrie’s conversion factor should have been 196.706. That number differs from my estimate of 196.713 by just 4 parts in 100,000. He was aware of that, of course. And yet, he decided to stick with his own measurements. Note that nobody is questioning Petrie's measurements given in survey units. It is his conversion of those to inches or meters, which is being challenged; and that is something of no concern to me (because ratios remain constant during conversions), but rather only to those who look for the meaning of those measurements in various ancient and modern units of length. Petrie Finally, but three stations are really common to both triangulations, and fairly fixed. The result of comparing these is a mean variation between the two surveys of 2" of angle, or 1/100000 equal to 1/10 inch. This is a variation such as professedly may exist in either of the surveys; and there is no reason therefore for doubting the professed accuracy of the survey of 1881, which results from the combination of dozens of check observations. . From the vantage point of the Athena-engraving, Petrie's survey of Giza blows off the mists shrouding the bridge between it and Giza. The Giza plan becomes a template dictating the position and contours of multiple major parts of the engraving. I continue to provide you with examples showing that the engraving is the result of exact design, not unmeasured free-hand drawing. That fact alone constitutes a revolutionary paradigm changing discovery. In conjunction with the Nazca Lines and Giza pyramids, it adumbrates a hidden parallel reality complexifying our history. p.s. sorry about taking time to reply - better late than never