Taking a new look at life and death in Giza: how the pyramids built Egypt: Updated 22 September 2021

[Windowpane]

10 hours ago, Infin8tee said:

Actually the primary source would be Jomard, since that is who Smyth relies on.  And from Jomard I give you two snips translated by google from Vol 4: Antiquités Mémoires II pg. 53.  

(Reader 53; pg. 45).

 

Quote

 I'll let you figure out what the Reaumur thermometer and it's accuracy was. 

...

 

Réaumur thermometer.

Jomard's profuse sweat: as we know, there's a noticeable level of humidity within the GP which might make the perceived temperature feel higher anyway ...

This 1894 article repeats the claim about the constant temperature.

[Thanos5150]

5 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Jomard's profuse sweat: as we know, there's a noticeable level of humidity within the GP which might make the perceived temperature feel higher anyway ...

But the 68 degree thing is still just an arbitrary made up number Smyth used because it had another numerological significance to him. I am sure whatever ever number within this range he could find that had some other greater cosmic meaning he would have choose that instead.  

Quote

This 1894 article repeats the claim about the constant temperature.

Quote

The temperature of the king’s chamber never varies; and if the coffer had once contained water. and the lid had not been removed by some of the Arabs or other barbarians who once broke into and ravaged the Pyramid, that water would have remained in the coffer for all time. 

Good times. All the way around, some real scientific stuff here. 

[Swede]

20 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

What "methodology" and what does this have to do with him taking Jomard and Well's measurements and just making up a number of 68 degrees? I don't think there is much more to it than described by Smyth himself.  Regardless, the claim which you have repeated as fact is:  "Also note that G1 maintains a consistent interior temperature (68 F, 20 C)." It is readily apparent from Smyth's writings that he is the primary source which as we can see he just made up the 68 degrees number. If this is wrong by all means please quote Smyth.

In an attempt to better understand Smyth’s equipment and methodology, a bit more research was conducted this AM. This research revealed the following:

Smyth, Piazzi

1867  Life and Work at the Great Pyramid.

This text deals with his 1865 investigations at Giza. While there has obviously not been enough time to read the 563 page text in full detail, a number of interesting points were noted:

• ·         The expedition carried 27 wooden boxes “almost entirely occupied with scientific instruments” (Smyth 1867, p.16).

• ·         The scientific instruments included “several thermometers” (Smyth 1867, p.119).

• ·         Exterior temperature measurements included “hourly observations which were frequently indulged in” (Smyth 1867, p.119).

• ·         Interior temperature measurements were taken in the “large chamber” of G2 (Smyth 1867, p.268).

• ·         Interior temperature measurements were taken in G1 (Smyth 1867, p.268).

• ·         At a later date, temperature measurements were taken specifically in the King’s Chamber (Smyth 1867, p.411).

The above would suggest that Smyth was dealing with actual readings. Smyth goes into some detail regarding his methodologies in his multi-disciplinary studies.

.

 

[Swede]

23 hours ago, cladking said:

What does this sentence mean and how does it apply?   What is a "temperature aspect"?  

The only "thermography claims" of which I am aware is that I predicted the results of the infrared scan before they even announced they were going to do the test.  

Of course not.  I said "heat transfer spots" and these can not be seen by muography and ONLY by infrared or a thermometer.  This is EXACTLY what showed up EXACTLY where I said they would; in the infrared.  

The only "empty rhetoric" is your gainsaying my points and citing irrelevancies.  If your house is too cold you don't turn up the muography.  Gainsaying the cold doesn't make it warmer.

I'm sure somewhere I predicted that the infrared scan would solve the means that was used to build the great pyramids no matter what means that actually was.  Now six years and a half  day later they still won't let us or Peers see the results.  What is wrong with this picture.  

1                1)      Are you suggesting that mass temperature is not related to thermography?

2)      And what is your definition of a “heat transfer point”? When you entered this topic (#4), it was in response to Wepwawet’s video (#3) which discussed the gravimetric, thermographic, and later, muographic studies directed at documenting previously unidentified voids in G!. As previously mentioned, the muography was instituted because the thermography proved to be inadequate.

The muography was able to define previously undocumented voids which was the initial purpose of the thermographic studies.

.Edit: Format.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Swede

[Swede]

20 hours ago, Infin8tee said:

Actually the primary source would be Jomard, since that is who Smyth relies on.  And from Jomard I give you two snips translated by google from Vol 4: Antiquités Mémoires II pg. 53.  

 I'll let you figure out what the Reaumur thermometer and it's accuracy was. 

His methodology, as you call it, but what I would call  his deduction or assumption, is given in his book. All you have to do is read it and the page numbers were already given. 

So you're saying the temperature recorded by Smyth and Jomard were not normal. But it was you who repeated the claim of a constant 68°. And now you're saying the 68° is not accurate for a couple of reasons. Not sure what the "end of the Little Ice Age" would have to do with the current desert climate of Cairo. A desert climate that has been in effect for how  many hundreds of years now? And what would the "heat retention properties" be of stone above ground  in a desert climate? I seriously doubt the passageways (whichever ones you refer to) would affect the interior temp.  

1)      See #28.

2)      See #28.

3)      Full paragraph: You seem to be somewhat confused as to the course of the conversation. You may wish to go back and read it in its entirety. As to the impacts of the Little Ice Age at Giza:

The Little Ice Age has been clearly shown to have influenced the African climate from the 14th to the 19th centuries.^[78] Despite variances throughout the continent, a general trend of declining temperatures in Africa led to an average cooling of 1 °C.^[79]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Edit: Clarification.

 

.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Swede

[Infin8tee]

1 hour ago, Swede said:

1)      See #28.

2)      See #28.

3)      Full paragraph: You seem to be somewhat confused as to the course of the conversation. You may wish to go back and read it in its entirety. As to the impacts of the Little Ice Age at Giza:

The Little Ice Age has been clearly shown to have influenced the African climate from the 14th to the 19th centuries.^[78] Despite variances throughout the continent, a general trend of declining temperatures in Africa led to an average cooling of 1 °C.^[79]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Edit: Clarification.

 

.

Am I supposed to guess  what part of your #28 is relevant to my post? Sorry but I don't have time for games, you need to specify.

You seem to not understand the questions I asked, which had nothing to do with the  "course of the conversation". I was very specific. You might reread my post to grasp the fact that I was asking about the 68° statement. At this point you might explain what the Little Ice Age has to do with Smyth's  temperatures. Unless you can tell me what influence it had on the interior temp of the pyramids, I will consider it an obfuscation that has no relevancy whatsoever to the interior temps. 

2 hours ago, Swede said:

1867  Life and Work at the Great Pyramid.

Which volume are you referencing? I hope you don't expect someone to look through all 3 volumes to find your clips. Or perhaps you don't realize there are 3 volumes. 

 

[Infin8tee]

12 hours ago, Windowpane said:

(Reader 53; pg. 45).

 

Is that supposed to be a link? Have no idea what it means.

Quote

Réaumur thermometer.

Yes I know.

Quote

Jomard's profuse sweat: as we know, there's a noticeable level of humidity within the GP which might make the perceived temperature feel higher anyway ...

I thought we were talking about a constant 68°, as you stated. Now you're venturing off into humidity. I'm looking for a source that has taken a temp reading of precisely 68°. I gather you don't know of such a source and are merely repeating what you have heard/read. But please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote

This 1894 article repeats the claim about the constant temperature.

That article gives nothing specific. It's worthless.

[Windowpane]

10 hours ago, Infin8tee said:

Is that supposed to be a link? Have no idea what it means.

I thought we were talking about a constant 68°, as you stated. Now you're venturing off into humidity. I'm looking for a source that has taken a temp reading of precisely 68°. I gather you don't know of such a source and are merely repeating what you have heard/read. But please, correct me if I'm wrong.

That article gives nothing specific. It's worthless.

<< Is that supposed to be a link? Have no idea what it means.

Simply a minor point, because your original reference contained a misleading page number. 

<< I thought we were talking about a constant 68° ... Now you're venturing off into humidity.

While I suspect that the claim of a "constant 68° might not be altogether accurate, what has emerged during this discussion is that, since the time that a constant temperature was first mooted, various factors might have intervened to affect the perceived temperature.  Possibly humidity might be one.  (Does anyone know of any humidity measurements in the GP?)

>> I'm looking for a source that has taken a temp reading of precisely 68°.

I don't know of one of exactly that figure.  The only recent reliable reading was the Queen's Chamber figure to which I referred in a previous post.

I suspect that the real point of the "constant 68°" statement - which, as pointed out, has now become something of a meme - was to indicate that the GP interior temperature was notable for its constancy.  

 

 

[cladking]

   

Quote

    1)      Are you suggesting that mass temperature is not related to thermography?

No.  No, I Am not.  

Thermography can be used to measure temperature much like a thermometer.  It operates at a distance and obviates the need for thousands of thermometers and their readings.  \

Quote

2)      And what is your definition of a “heat transfer point”? 

A "heat transfer point" is actually the exact same thing as a "thermal anomaly" when you know it exists in advance.  It was the existence of these heat transfer points that caused me to campaign for thermal imaging in the first place.  I knew they would show up all over all of the great pyramids and where they would be.  I called them "heat transfer points" because these are the points at which heat flows into the pyramid in March and out of the pyramid in October.    Heat is simply being transferred in and out of the great pyramids at all of these points caused by the nature of the structures and related to the means by which they were built.  

Quote

 As previously mentioned, the muography was instituted because the thermography proved to be inadequate.

Muography and infrared were begun at the exact same time and were part of the "Scanspyramid Project".  

They simply dropped the infrared like a hot potato after the results and the computer aided results were completed and never released the results or the data.  Everything known including the endoscope tubes in the "anomalies" was leaked out by Zahi Hawass.  Very little more has leaked out since Zahi announced they will no longer release results that don't conform to Egyptological beliefs.  Since none of the thermal imaging results conform to Egyptology they are no longer doing this testing or releasing results.  Meanwhile my theory is still making accurate predictions.  

Quote

The muography was able to define previously undocumented voids which was the initial purpose of the thermographic studies.

I predict all of these voids will be irrelevant to the function and construction of the pyramids except to the degree they conform to my theory.  If there is another "grand gallery" it will turn out to have been used like the existing one and have nothing to do with ramps, superstition, or funerals for dead kings.  Like everyone else I'll just have to wait for Egyptology to never study them.  This void will be of little help in understanding anything about the pyramid.  Just like all the data it will be interpreted in terms of what is already "known".  However, this new region may well be in pristine condition and undisturbed meaning lots of evidence that could lead to understanding.  

 

It should be added that the primary reason for doing the infrared had nothing at all to do with seeking voids per se.  Egyptology allowed it because they wanted to prove external ramps were used by proving there were no internal ramps as proposed by Pierre Houdin who found funding for the thermal imaging (Dassault Systems).  It sorrta worked because they certainly proved there were no internal ramps.  

Edited October 6, 2021 by cladking

[Thanos5150]

21 hours ago, Swede said:

In an attempt to better understand Smyth’s equipment and methodology, a bit more research was conducted this AM. This research revealed the following:

Smyth, Piazzi

1867  Life and Work at the Great Pyramid.

This text deals with his 1865 investigations at Giza. While there has obviously not been enough time to read the 563 page text in full detail, a number of interesting points were noted:

• ·         The expedition carried 27 wooden boxes “almost entirely occupied with scientific instruments” (Smyth 1867, p.16).
• ·         The scientific instruments included “several thermometers” (Smyth 1867, p.119).
• ·         Exterior temperature measurements included “hourly observations which were frequently indulged in” (Smyth 1867, p.119).
• ·         Interior temperature measurements were taken in the “large chamber” of G2 (Smyth 1867, p.268).
• ·         Interior temperature measurements were taken in G1 (Smyth 1867, p.268).
• ·         At a later date, temperature measurements were taken specifically in the King’s Chamber (Smyth 1867, p.411).

The above would suggest that Smyth was dealing with actual readings. Smyth goes into some detail regarding his methodologies in his multi-disciplinary studies.

I've graduated from numbered lists to bullet points. Nice. 

Interesting though the part of quotes you keep bolding:

Quote

What "methodology" and what does this have to do with him taking Jomard and Well's measurements and just making up a number of 68 degrees? I don't think there is much more to it than described by Smyth himself.  Regardless, the claim which you have repeated as fact is:  "Also note that G1 maintains a consistent interior temperature (68 F, 20 C)." It is readily apparent from Smyth's writings that he is the primary source which as we can see he just made up the 68 degrees number. If this is wrong by all means please quote Smyth.

"What "methodology"" is obviously rhetorical as regardless of his measurements and boxes of scientific equipment they are not responsible for Smyth's arrival at 68 degrees. A further tip off might be as noted Smyth came up with ("no less than") 75f for the KC (as well as 74f for the QC). Therefore, as well, the "methodology" would not be how he measured the temperature, which we can assume was accurate and honestly reported, but the methodology of how he came up with 68f in spite of those measurements. 

What is strange is you list by page # the measurements Smyth took and where, as if this supported the 68f claim, yet omit the measurements themselves which across the board clearly contradict it. Maybe it would be helpful for you to make a bullet list of how Smyth came up with 68f instead of all the ways he did not.       

And then you curiously bold this: "If this is wrong by all means please quote Smyth." as if the above bullet points somehow satisfy this request.   

Try it this way:

Quote

What "methodology" and what does this have to do with him taking Jomard and Well's measurements and just making up a number of 68 degrees? I don't think there is much more to it than described by Smyth himself.  Regardless, the claim which you have repeated as fact is:  "Also note that G1 maintains a consistent interior temperature (68 F, 20 C)." It is readily apparent from Smyth's writings that he is the primary source which as we can see he just made up the 68 degrees number. If this is wrong by all means please quote Smyth. 

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Thanos5150

[Infin8tee]

13 hours ago, Windowpane said:

<< Is that supposed to be a link? Have no idea what it means.

simply a minor point, because your original reference contained a misleading page number. 

 

Nothing misleading about it. Original post:  "Vol 4: Antiquités Mémoires II pg. 53".  My link brought up a list of page numbers, selecting 53 would take you to the source. Or this link might work better : PAGE 53

Quote

While I suspect that the claim of a "constant 68° might not be altogether accurate, what has emerged during this discussion is that, since the time that a constant temperature was first mooted, various factors might have intervened to affect the perceived temperature.  Possibly humidity might be one.  (Does anyone know of any humidity measurements in the GP?)

But Smyth wasn't talking about  "perceived temperature". He didn't comment on how it felt. You seem to be switching oars in mid stream.

Thermometers measure the air temp, regardless of humidity. Jomard recorded air temp and commented on humidity. They are two separate factors. Smyth also recorded air temp. Humidity is subjective. Cairo seems to be at a 60% humidity level. This will be comfortable for those on the U.S. east coast and England, but miserable for desert dwellers like me. Humidity makes the air temp FEEL hotter. Humidity + lack of air flow make for a very uncomfortable experience. But, it does not change the air temperature.

Quote

I suspect that the real point of the "constant 68°" statement - which, as pointed out, has now become something of a meme - was to indicate that the GP interior temperature was notable for its constancy.  

A constant temp would be notable for anyone who has not picked up a rock on a hot day or ventured into  a manmade or earthen shaft. Otherwise a constant temp is to be expected with stone walls as thick as a GP. I see nothing notable or mysterious about it. Except for the humidity. 

Another question to investigate is from your source "Discovery of a big void in Khufu’s Pyramid" which states :

Quote

These films can be used for long term (2-3 months) measurement
in an environment at 25 °C (temperature in the Queen’s chamber)
by tuning of volume occupancy of silver bromide crystals (35%)30

Which would be, as thanos pointed out, 77F. Almost 10° warmer than  your 68°.   We don't know what the humidity was. In any event, it certainly looks like the 68° figure is a myth created by Smyth that many, such as yourself, have bought into. In recording air temperatures, humidity is a measurement of the amount of moisture in the air. An inquiring mind would ask; what is generating so much humidity? In any event, I doubt it is a matter egyptology would be interested in.  Did the Japanese team actually record the temp or were they relying on some other source as is common in today's Egyptology.

 

[Windowpane]

7 hours ago, Infin8tee said:

Nothing misleading about it. Original post:  "Vol 4: Antiquités Mémoires II pg. 53".  My link brought up a list of page numbers, selecting 53 would take you to the source. Or this link might work better : PAGE 53

...

It's page 53 of the reader software.  Page 45 in the book (the page number you'd use if you were citing it in a reference).  

<<  it certainly looks like the 68° figure is a myth created by Smyth that many, such as yourself, have bought into.

"Bought into it?" I haven't said any such thing.  Having investigated the question, I discovered several differing readings.  It's also emerged that, in any case, the temperature might be affected by various factors.   As I said previously:

Quote

I suspect that the real point of the "constant 68°" statement - which, as pointed out, has now become something of a meme - was to indicate that the GP interior temperature was notable for its constancy. 

Quote

(infin8tee) An inquiring mind would ask; what is generating so much humidity?

That's a very interesting question, and I've not come across any discussion of it so far (except in the context of the shafts in the early 1990s).  Would you happen to know anything more about the humidity question?

[Thanos5150]

On 10/6/2021 at 1:41 AM, Windowpane said:

While I suspect that the claim of a "constant 68° might not be altogether accurate,

Nancy Drew is on the case. Whatever tipped you off? And after reading Smyth yourself now can you please explain how you have not moved past this "suspicion"?   

I suspect that this "factoid" was an edit in a very early version of the G1 Wikipedia page which got proliferated and then repeated amongst the various websites.  

Quote

what has emerged during this discussion is that, since the time that a constant temperature was first mooted, various factors might have intervened to affect the perceived temperature.  Possibly humidity might be one.  (Does anyone know of any humidity measurements in the GP?)

Humidity would not be one. Ever look at the weather report and it says the temp is 82 but "feels like" 86. That's humidity. What "emerged" was Swede repeating Smyths excuses as why these temperatures were off from his intended target of 68F. 

Quote

I don't know of one of exactly that figure.  The only recent reliable reading was the Queen's Chamber figure to which I referred in a previous post.

Which says: "The bias voltage of the MPPC was selected according to the temperature of the Queen’s Chamber, which is constant regardless of the weather outside." which they note is 77F (25C). Smyth had 74F for the QC and 75F for the KC-a "deranged" number in his opinion because it was not the magic 68F he was looking for. So if we take this recent paper at face value it corroborates the fact Smyth just made up the 68F number to better fit into his numerology scheme. 

And I wonder if the scientists in this paper did a year round day and night study. 

Quote

I suspect that the real point of the "constant 68°" statement - which, as pointed out, has now become something of a meme - was to indicate that the GP interior temperature was notable for its constancy.  

So you haven't read Smyth. Or my posts about what Smyth said. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by Thanos5150

[Swede]

On 10/6/2021 at 11:04 AM, Thanos5150 said:

"What "methodology"" is obviously rhetorical as regardless of his measurements and boxes of scientific equipment they are not responsible for Smyth's arrival at 68 degrees. A further tip off might be as noted Smyth came up with ("no less than") 75f for the KC (as well as 74f for the QC). Therefore, as well, the "methodology" would not be how he measured the temperature, which we can assume was accurate and honestly reported, but the methodology of how he came up with 68f in spite of those measurements. 

What is strange is you list by page # the measurements Smyth took and where, as if this supported the 68f claim, yet omit the measurements themselves which across the board clearly contradict it. Maybe it would be helpful for you to make a bullet list of how Smyth came up with 68f instead of all the ways he did not.        

Having finally had the time to study Smyth’s temperature data, would agree that the recorded temperatures are in excess of the 68⁰ figure. One interesting aspect is the small variance (2.5⁰) in the temperatures throughout G1. As to your questions:

1)      In Vol IV, Smyth goes into this again. As you know, he accepts Jomard’s figure as near the original temperature based upon the pyramid’s location and his 1/5 calculation. Due to all the intervening activities, he apparently viewed his actual readings as corrupted and was focused on the perceived original temperature.

2)      Yes, as noted in #28, the fact that we had actual readings suggested that these were the basis for his figures. It was not until later that time was available for me to study his measurements.

As a side note: Despite limited use of Biblical numerology, it would appear that Smyth was much more influenced by religious beliefs than numerology per se.

.

 

[Infin8tee]

13 hours ago, Windowpane said:

That's a very interesting question, and I've not come across any discussion of it so far (except in the context of the shafts in the early 1990s).  Would you happen to know anything more about the humidity question?

Well don't look to the Egyptologists for a discussion, it's far outside their purview. Since humidity is a measurement of water in the air, a weatherman would be a better source.    I think a mining engineer would be a good source but I don't know one. 

As noted by those who have been inside the great pyramids, it's so hot they were drenched in sweat. When conditions are not overly humid, sweat will cool the body as it evaporates. If it's not evaporating the humidity is very high and one becomes drenched. I'm guessing upwards of 100% humidity in the chambers considering the temp range of 75-77° which is not an uncomfortable temp. Which tells me water/moisture is entering the pyramids and that could be interesting considering they're built on bedrock. Unless they're burning quartz lights in the chambers which would generate alot of heat. High heat will make one weak and sleepy but high humidity makes one wet and miserable.  But this is all very much an amateur opinion. Bauval could probably shed some light on the subject. 

And all of this from one simple erroneous statement made by swede;  "Also note that G1 maintains a consistent interior temperature (68⁰ F, 20⁰ C)." 

The moral to the story is - there's a whole lot more to the pyramids than what Egyptologists see. And we would have a very narrow picture if we relied solely on their lack of expertise. 

[Thanos5150]

On 10/7/2021 at 1:04 PM, Swede said:

Having finally had the time to study Smyth’s temperature data,

Well, when you are "studying" everything but the temperature data, ironically, yes it is hard to find the time. As I said way back in #17:

"Instead of noting his musings why the temperature might be different, as if this number were valid in the first place, maybe it is more relevant to understand how he came up with this number at all." 

In response to you: "The 1874 edition refers to the stability but the 1880 (and possibly 1891) edition goes into more detail including the 68⁰ F figure. Various mentions are made on pages 219, 251, 252, and 256 amongst others. He refers primarily to the sealed pyramid with focus on the King’s Chamber. He also bemoans the effects on the temperature of passageways and chambers that were resulting from the opening of the passageways, increased human activity, and the frequent use of torches." 

I am not sure what there is to "study" as this whole business is over a few pages with its own sub chapter headings let alone how could you not have "studied" it your first pass when you took the time to find the page numbers including reading the relevant pages enough to tell us what Smyth bemoans. 

 

Quote

 

would agree that the recorded temperatures are in excess of the 68⁰ figure.

 

 

Your "agreement" is not required, just your understanding as you are the one repeating the false claim. Smyth speaks for itself which I have already paraphrased much here regarding the 68F. But if I did not say it before, thank you for the source. Smyth is not credible in many regards and has never interested me so unless something specific I do not bother with his writings. 

Quote

As to your questions:

I didn't ask you any questions. 

Quote

1) In Vol IV, Smyth goes into this again. As you know, he accepts Jomard’s figure as near the original temperature based upon the pyramid’s location and his 1/5 calculation. Due to all the intervening activities, he apparently viewed his actual readings as corrupted and was focused on the perceived original temperature.

Yeah, I already went into this the first post I made after we knew the source. See above. 

Quote

2)      Yes, as noted in #28, the fact that we had actual readings suggested that these were the basis for his figures. It was not until later that time was available for me to study his measurements.

Sorry, but I do not think this has anything to do with the availability of your time. 

Quote

As a side note: Despite limited use of Biblical numerology, it would appear that Smyth was much more influenced by religious beliefs than numerology per se.

Of course.  

Edited October 9, 2021 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

On 10/7/2021 at 1:04 PM, Swede said:

1)      In Vol IV, Smyth goes into this again. As you know, he accepts Jomard’s figure as near the original temperature based upon the pyramid’s location and his 1/5 calculation. Due to all the intervening activities, he apparently viewed his actual readings as corrupted and was focused on the perceived original temperature.

The problem is all the measurements he notes subsequent to Jomard, including his own, are even worse despite suffering the same sorts of "intervening activities". Regardless, to repeat myself again from #17:  

Quote

He says Jomard (18th century) measured 71.6f (Fahrenheit) in the King's Chamber with him adding the commentary that this was "unnaturally raised" by means you note above. Vyse came up with 75f. Then he goes on to say that Well took a temperature measurement at the Citadel of Cairo, a medieval Arab church some 15 miles away, "at the same latitude and height", using watery vapor no less, too much in Smyth's opinion, and came up with  62.6-64.4f. Etc, etc. Put it all in a numerology blender and Smyth gets "nearly a mean" of 68f which he makes sure to note again is the desired 1/5th.  

Apparently this needs to be explained but Smyth came to 68f as he tells us by taking the mean of Jomard's 71.6 and Well's 64.4 (from the Arab church 15mi away). 71.6 + 64.4 = 136. 136/2= 68. Yeah. 

Edited October 9, 2021 by Thanos5150

[Swede]

On 10/9/2021 at 10:02 AM, Thanos5150 said:

Well, when you are "studying" everything but the temperature data, ironically, yes it is hard to find the time. As I said way back in #17

You would appear to be suffering from some sort of confusion. You will note that the points brought up in #28 are from a scan of Smyth, Vol I. As previously mentioned, there was a delay of ~ two days before other demands allowed me the time to study the tables you refer to, which are in Smyth, Vol II.,pp 206,207.

The remainder of your contribution is redundant.

.

[Swede]

On 10/9/2021 at 10:25 AM, Thanos5150 said:

Apparently this needs to be explained but Smyth came to 68f as he tells us by taking the mean of Jomard's 71.6 and Well's 64.4 (from the Arab church 15mi away). 71.6 + 64.4 = 136. 136/2= 68. Yeah. 

And by applying his 1/5 calculation which was stimulated by his combined interpretations of observed structural building practices and Biblically significant numbers. The Well's measurements appear to be "convenient".

.

[ChrLzs]

On 10/2/2021 at 12:18 PM, cladking said:

Am I supposed to apologize for being correct about everything?

As Swede comprehensively points out, you'd only need to apologise on rare occasions.

 

[cladking]

Quote

As Swede comprehensively points out, you'd only need to apologise on rare occasions.

Perhaps but the fact remains that when the anomalies were found Hawass issued an urgent plea for Egyptologists to make some hypothesis as to why they existed even though I had predicted all of them.  

Maybe asking Egyptologists to explain engineering issues was the wrong way to go.  

[Thanos5150]

20 hours ago, Swede said:

You would appear to be suffering from some sort of confusion. .

As confused as I am not surprised.   

Quote

You will note that the points brought up in #28 are from a scan of Smyth, Vol I. As previously mentioned, there was a delay of ~ two days before other demands allowed me the time to study the tables you refer to, which are in Smyth, Vol II.,pp 206,207.

This is foolish. I am sure any reader actually following along gets it by now. And can you quote me where I referred to the tables in Smyth Vol II pp206, 207? No matter but you have a habit of attributing comments to me I did not make. Regardless, this is something you needed "time to "study? Yeesh. So let's just be clear. In your own words you took a "scan" of Smyth to come up with this:

Quote

 

In an attempt to better understand Smyth’s equipment and methodology, a bit more research was conducted this AM. This research revealed the following:

Smyth, Piazzi

1867  Life and Work at the Great Pyramid.

This text deals with his 1865 investigations at Giza. While there has obviously not been enough time to read the 563 page text in full detail, a number of interesting points were noted:

·         The expedition carried 27 wooden boxes “almost entirely occupied with scientific instruments” (Smyth 1867, p.16).

·         The scientific instruments included “several thermometers” (Smyth 1867, p.119).

·         Exterior temperature measurements included “hourly observations which were frequently indulged in” (Smyth 1867, p.119).

·         Interior temperature measurements were taken in the “large chamber” of G2 (Smyth 1867, p.268).

·         Interior temperature measurements were taken in G1 (Smyth 1867, p.268).

·         At a later date, temperature measurements were taken specifically in the King’s Chamber (Smyth 1867, p.411).

The above would suggest that Smyth was dealing with actual readings. Smyth goes into some detail regarding his methodologies in his multi-disciplinary studies.

 

But needed two days, apart from your other demands that did not prevent you from posting every day otherwise, and "time to study" these two pages...? Uh, ok.  

As I said before: 

"I am not sure what there is to "study" as this whole business is over a few pages with its own sub chapter headings let alone how could you not have "studied" it your first pass when you took the time to find the page numbers including reading the relevant pages enough to tell us what Smyth bemoans." 

Quote

The remainder of your contribution is redundant.

Yes-its called repeating one's self. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Thanos5150

[Swede]

On 10/11/2021 at 11:18 AM, Thanos5150 said:

This is foolish. I am sure any reader actually following along gets it by now. And can you quote me where I referred to the tables in Smyth Vol II pp206, 207? No matter but you have a habit of attributing comments to me I did not make. Regardless, this is something you needed "time to "study? Yeesh. So let's just be clear. In your own words you took a "scan" of Smyth to come up with this:

But needed two days, apart from your other demands that did not prevent you from posting every day otherwise, and "time to study" these two pages...? Uh, ok.  

As I said before: 

"I am not sure what there is to "study" as this whole business is over a few pages with its own sub chapter headings let alone how could you not have "studied" it your first pass when you took the time to find the page numbers including reading the relevant pages enough to tell us what Smyth bemoans."

1.       . On 10-9-21 you stated the following: a few pages with its own sub chapter headings (Thanos #41). This would appear to be a reference to Smyth, Vol. II, pp.206, 207. The specific citation was personally included as an aid to others.
2.       ).  This would be incorrect.  #28 was submitted on Tuesday, 10-5-21. This was followed by a short period of responses presented in the subsequent 19 minutes. My next contribution occurred on Thursday, 10-7-21. Approximately two days.
3.        .  As previously alluded to, the 563 pages of Smyth, Vol. I was the only volume reviewed as of the submission of #28. Smyth, Vol. II had not yet been reviewed and would not be until time allowed.
4.   4. Yes, Smyth, Vol II, pp. 206-207 in the original text. As previously cited.
5.   5. The source search function is a useful tool.

Edit: Punctuation.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Swede

[Thanos5150]

5 hours ago, Swede said:

1.       . On 10-9-21 you stated the following: a few pages with its own sub chapter headings (Thanos #41). This would appear to be a reference to Smyth, Vol. II, pp.206, 207. The specific citation was personally included as an aid to others.
2.       ).  This would be incorrect.  #28 was submitted on Tuesday, 10-5-21. This was followed by a short period of responses presented in the subsequent 19 minutes. My next contribution occurred on Thursday, 10-7-21. Approximately two days.
3.        .  As previously alluded to, the 563 pages of Smyth, Vol. I was the only volume reviewed as of the submission of #28. Smyth, Vol. II had not yet been reviewed and would not be until time allowed.
4.   4. Yes, Smyth, Vol II, pp. 206-207 in the original text. As previously cited.
5.   5. The source search function is a useful tool.

1) It was not. It was a reference to Our inheritance in the Great Pyramid : including all the most important discoveries up to the present time pp168-173. You assumed and attributed to me once again something I did not say. 

2) This is correct. In your own words that I responded to:

"You will note that the points brought up in #28 are from a scan of Smyth, Vol I. As previously mentioned, there was a delay of ~ two days before other demands allowed me the time to study the tables you refer to, which are in Smyth, Vol II.,pp 206,207."

But now you are saying we should not believe you? Ok then. 

3) ?

4) ?

5) It is though in your case I would recommend actually reading the posts. 

In conclusion, you uncritically repeated something as fact which as we can see is not the case. No need to continuously obfuscate the issue to save face-just own it and move on. 

 

[Thanos5150]

14 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

1) It was not. It was a reference to Our inheritance in the Great Pyramid : including all the most important discoveries up to the present time pp168-173. You assumed and attributed to me once again something I did not say. 

2) This is correct. In your own words that I responded to:

"You will note that the points brought up in #28 are from a scan of Smyth, Vol I. As previously mentioned, there was a delay of ~ two days before other demands allowed me the time to study the tables you refer to, which are in Smyth, Vol II.,pp 206,207."

But now you are saying we should not believe you? Ok then. 

3) ?

4) ?

5) It is though in your case I would recommend actually reading the posts. 

In conclusion, you uncritically repeated something as fact which as we can see is not the case. No need to continuously obfuscate the issue to save face-just own it and move on. 

 

Given, it is the two of you, but still, if you have been reading along what could you possibly be "confused" about? Explain yourselves and I will alleviate you of this burden.