The Egyptian pyramids at Giza are temples of a forgotten science-religion. A detailed study of the geometry of the Giza plateau using the data of the geodetic expedition of C. F. Petrie, the results of aerospace survey and electronic drawings allows us to definitely speak of the existence of a single architectural and geometric plan of the pyramid complex in Giza.
Before I first came to the Giza plateau, the pyramids were not a mystery to me. From the school bench, it is known that the three most famous pyramids of ancient Egypt, located on the Giza plateau, were built by slaves during the reign of the pharaohs of the 4th dynasty of the Ancient Kingdom of Cheops, Khephren and Mycerin. The pyramids served as the tombs of the pharaohs, they were the personification of the symbols of their greatness and absolute power, given by the God of the Sun Ra himself.
But all this bookish and encyclopedic knowledge loses its meaning when you first see the pyramids. At first they appear from afar, from a distance of several tens of kilometers, half-hidden by the eternal Cairo smog, like a mysterious veil. The pyramids rise above the streets of Cairo, a huge city of 17 million, like the cones of some unthinkably gigantic anthills, built in time immemorial by the forgotten ancestors of human civilization. But next to the pyramids, a person does not at all seem like an ant: he is a lion, the king of nature, returning home. He is greeted by a stone lion with a human face, on which an expression of otherworldly thoughtfulness and expectation is frozen. The Sphinx is calm. He waited four and a half thousand years, and will wait as long as necessary.
To the riddles of the pyramids, I added one more for myself. It happened by chance: climbing on the stone next to the entrance to the memorial temple of Khafre, it seemed to me that I saw something unusual: the outlines of the pyramid clearly appeared on the face of the Sphinx, as if a lion with the appearance of a man and the Great Pyramid of Cheops had turned into a single whole. No, all this was not at all some kind of mystical vision: the photograph clearly shows what is at stake:
Whether this picture arose as a result of a random play of shadows, or according to the design of the great architects of antiquity - I do not know. Archaeologists say that there is no direct historical connection between the Cheops pyramid and the Sphinx - perhaps they are right. Be that as it may, the Sphinx asked another of its countless mysteries.
The first thing I did after returning home from Egypt more than two years ago was to try to find descriptions or references to the phenomenon I saw. Alas, no information was found on the Internet or in the few literature available to me. I tried to contact Egyptologists and those who are considered famous specialists on the Sphinx and the pyramids - Lechner, Hancock, Gilbert, Legon and others. Almost everyone who found it necessary to answer limited themselves to a polite "nice photo". and the "classical" Egyptologists categorically declared: incidental coincidence.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to calm down on this: they say, anything can happen. But the further I delved into my Egyptological "research", the more mysteries, unsolved and frankly hushed up by Egyptologists, ambiguities and mysteries were revealed ahead. The story of R. Gaterbrink, who opened in 1993 a secret "door" in the Cheops pyramid, described in detail on the site cheops.org, unambiguously allowed us to conclude: something is wrong in official Egyptology. This means that the coincidence shown in the photograph may not be accidental.
Promotional video:
The Gizekh trap slammed shut. The riddle of the Sphinx demanded its solution, regardless of the summary of official science. Egyptologists refused to share information, jealously guarding their possessions from "fringe science". Behind their position was fatigue from "sensational discoveries" and crazy hypotheses expressed by "pyramidiots" - crazy researchers who declare the Great Pyramid to be a giant water pump, a power plant, or a cosmic beacon.
However, discarding fiction, you can find several theories regarding the purpose of the pyramids. The most widespread is the "theory of tombs" adopted in classical Egyptology, which asserts that the pyramids are nothing more than giant crypts, called "mastaba" in the east. Thus, the oldest surviving pyramid, the step pyramid of Djoser in Saqqara, is six classic mastabas stacked on top of each other. Subsequently, according to Egyptologists, the multi-tiered stepped crypts were transformed for some reason into smooth pyramids, and the stepped and classical smooth forms coexisted in parallel, as evidenced by the complex of small pyramids-satellites of the pyramid of Mikerin in Giza.
Less common is the "temple theory" rejected by Egyptologists, often mentioned in esoteric literature. Supporters of this theory believe that the pyramids were built as temples, religious buildings of some ancient religion. In the pyramids of the 4th dynasty there are no names of pharaohs, no frescoes or bas-reliefs praising the deeds of the departed - there are no signs so characteristic of ancient Egyptian burials. At the same time, the crypts adjacent to the pyramids, including those belonging to the 4th dynasty, still retain hieroglyphic texts, picturesque scenes and bas-reliefs. Why did the powerful pharaohs not want to keep their names forever in their burial chambers? The pyramid texts cover the walls of the later buildings of the 5-6 dynasty, but these burials are rather stylized as pyramids and are not at all as large and perfect as their predecessors.
Such reasoning suggests that the pyramids were not crypts and served not only and not so much for the burial of the pharaohs. Moreover, the true burial places of the 4th dynasty pharaohs, in all likelihood, have not yet been found. The esoteric tradition also preserved references to the depositories of ancient knowledge hidden on the Giza plateau, which will be discovered by modern civilization only when it is able to perceive them. It is possible that all these legends are nothing more than fiction, but the architectural and engineering perfection of the pyramids is obvious evidence of the high level of development of ancient science.
Temple theory has one important feature. It presupposes the existence of regularities or, rather, a single engineering and symbolic plan in the arrangement of the pyramids on the Giza plateau. If the tombs could have been erected at different times according to separate independent "projects", the temples, most likely, should have been combined into a single architectural complex. Many researchers, including representatives of the classical school in Egyptology, were looking for patterns in the location of the Egyptian pyramids. A significant role in the study was played by the geodetic expedition of C. F. Petrie in 1883, when the location and orientation of the pyramids were accurately described by the methods of geodetic triangulation. Features of this method of geodetic referencing, based on taking multiple measurements from many different control points,allowed Petri to geometrically calculate the location and orientation of the pyramids with high accuracy (up to centimeters). Later measurements confirmed the accuracy of the Petri data, thus, despite the age of the study, the results of triangulation are still the most reliable cartographic source.
Multiple attempts to "decipher" the ancient plan of the architectural complex in Giza, carried out over the past centuries, have not yet brought plausible results. This fact, according to Egyptologists, serves as another confirmation of the "theory of tombs", so that the problem is now considered closed. Archaeologists are convinced that the plan does not exist, and they meet any research related to the search for a single scheme of the architectural complex in Giza with great disapproval. However, research is still being carried out by many enthusiasts, with two broad lines of research for the proposed architectural plan of Giza: archaeoastronomical and geometric. The main hypothesis of the astronomical plan is the idea, widely advertised by Hancock and Bauvel, that the pyramids of Cheops,Khafre and Mikerin repeat the arrangement of the three stars of Orion's belt, a constellation that played a significant role in Egyptian religion. There is a lot of historical evidence that can be considered as confirmation of the stellar hypothesis (this evidence is detailed in the books of Hancock and Bauvel, translated into Russian), but there are many details that cast doubt on this hypothesis. Critics of Bauvel's theories can be found on the Internet (Legon, Dornenburg and others). Critics of Bauvel's theories can be found on the Internet (Legon, Dornenburg and others). Critics of Bauvel's theories can be found on the Internet (Legon, Dornenburg and others).
The geometrical direction of the search for the lost architectural plan is no less popular. Unfortunately, many researchers use in their theories unreliable maps and topographic plans containing a lot of errors and distortions. At the same time, Petri triangulation data have been available on the Internet for quite a long time, as well as detailed aerial photographs, which make it possible to accurately determine the location of objects not indicated by Petri, such as the Sphinx and "burial temples".
The requirements for the accuracy of the data and results of geometric theories are very high: for example, assuming deviations of 1 meter (0.1%), dozens of hypotheses can be proposed, which, however, will remain unprovable. An example of such research is the theories of Ritchie and Cox. Interesting results were obtained by Legon and Goodfellow; however, their "average" approach to the original Petri data makes the results very inconclusive.
A lot of research is connected with the use of "key" geometric constructions, among which the most interesting are the golden ratio, the squaring of the circle and the Egyptian triangle "seked" with the aspect ratio of 3-4-5. Ultimately, with a clear and precise geometric interpretation, the key constructions could become the only convincing evidence of the existence of the geometric architectural plan of the Giza plateau: more than a hundred years of intensive, but unsuccessful searches force to abandon the hope of finding a "pure" geometric representation, which would be called "Lay on the surface." At the same time, too complex, confusing constructions look unconvincing and turn out to be incorrect.
This concludes the introductory part. It remains to move on to presenting the results - unfortunately, they are still incomplete and, perhaps, not convincing enough.
1. Giza plateau. Topographic plan
1. Pyramid of Cheops - from above; 2. Pyramid of Khafre - in the middle; 3. Pyramid of Mikerin - below.
Even the "raw" initial data allow us to make a preliminary conclusion about the presence of a pattern in the arrangement of the pyramids on the plateau, if we take a rectangle as the basis of the geometric construction, in the corners of which there are the 1st and 3rd pyramids. The sides of the rectangle are parallel to the cardinal points (the deviation of the axis of the 1st pyramid from the north-south direction is 0.0041 °).
The north side of the 2nd pyramid divides the rectangle in a ratio of 1: 2 (the height of the yellow part is twice the height of the green one with the same width). The error is negligible and ranges from 4 to 12 cm for the western and eastern corners of the 2nd pyramid.
The angular distance between the middle of the western side of the 1st pyramid and its southeastern corner is 16.0069 ° when viewed from the center of the 3rd pyramid. The KM line connecting the tops of the 1st and 3rd pyramids divides this angle in into two parts: 6.0001 ° and 10.0068 °.
The angle between the "semi-diagonals" connecting the midpoints of the sides to the opposite corners of the rectangle is almost exactly 36 ° (36.0036 °).
This coincidence has an unexpected continuation: it turns out, using an angle of 36 °, it is possible, using simple geometric constructions, to calculate the area and perimeter of a circle with an accuracy of 0.171% and even less - up to 0.0023%!
The angle at the base of the ACD is 52.17 °, which does not "fit" into classical geometric designs (golden section, squaring a circle, 3-4-5 triangle, etc.). Nevertheless, the presence of a "hidden" angle of 36 ° gives reason to use 36 ° for further construction. In addition, the 36 ° angle is related to the Golden Ratio in a very simple way:
Take square ABCD; draw a circle centered at point O - midpoint AB, radius R = OC = OD. It is known that with such a construction the length of the segment BF = j * AB; where j = 0.618 is the famous golden ratio, for which the expression j +1 = 1 / j is valid.
Construct a circle of radius BF centered at point B. The point of intersection of the circle with the midline ab of the square ABCD gives the sought angle bBN equal to 36 °.
Further, by measuring the angle ADN, we get the value 51.8587 °. This angle is close to the inclination of the 1st pyramid of 51.85 °, and, of course, to the familiar value arctan (4 / p) = 51.8538 ° - the angle of inclination of a triangle, the area of which is equal to the area of a circle with a diameter equal to the height of the triangle.
But this construction has one more feature. To see it, let's return to the topographic plan of the Giza plateau.
2. Giza plateau. Topographic plan, part two
Let's construct a square ABCD so that the top of the 1st pyramid is in the middle of AB, and the top of the 3rd pyramid lies on the AD side. Let us inscribe a circle with a diameter equal to the side of the square.
Construct a right-angled triangle DEF with an angle at the base equal to arctan (4 / p) ~ = 51.85 °. Obviously, the area of the rectangle EFCD is equal to the area of the circle inscribed in the square ABCD (if not obvious - see the next figure on this page).
Thus, the construction shown in the figure makes it possible to geometrically represent the area of a circle through the area of the CDEF rectangle with an accuracy of 0.0171%.
It turns out that the northern side of the 2nd pyramid lies exactly on the EF side of the "equivalent" rectangle.
Another coincidence? It is possible, because the origin of the angle at 52.1692 ° and the fact that the same line EF divides the segment between the centers of the 1st and 3rd pyramids in a ratio of 1: 2 remains unclear. But here's what happens:
1. The area of the rectangle EFCD with the slope of the diagonal arctan (4 / p) = 51.8538 ° is equal to the area of the circle inscribed in the square ABCD:
Scircle = pR2 = p (AB)
2/4 S (EFCD) = (CD) * (ED) = (CD) * (CD) / (4 / p) = p (CD) 2/4
(AB) = (CD) => Scircle = S (EFCD).
2. To determine the perimeter of a circle of radius R, it is enough to measure the perimeter of a rectangle with a base 2R and a diagonal whose tangent the angle of inclination is
tga = p / 2-1, a = 29.7176 °:
Scircle = 2pR = p (CD);
S (GFCD) = 2 (CD) +2 (CD) (p / 2-1) = 2 (CD) +2 (CD) (p / 2) - 2 (CD) = p (CD);
Scircle = S (GFCD)
Thus, if the segment MA is divided into three equal parts, then, discarding the first part AE, we get the area of a circle with a diameter CD, and removing the second part EG - the perimeter of a circle with a diameter CD.
So, the "theoretical" value of the KMN angle is 52.1653 °, while the segment connecting the centers of the Cheops and Mykerin pyramids is inclined at an angle of 52.1692 ° to the east-west axis. The northern side of the Khafre pyramid corresponds to the line that cuts off the area of the circle from the area of the square ABCD, with an accuracy of 2 … 12 cm (Figure 2.1).
3. Pyramid of Khafre
Well, the resulting plan is not bad, but what does it have to do with the pyramids on the Giza plateau? After all, until now we have managed to connect only the relative position of the centers of the two pyramids and conditionally correlate them with one of the sides of the third. The results obtained are not enough to seriously talk about the plan, especially since there are no traces of the construction of the "key" angle of 36 degrees on the plateau (in addition to the mentioned method of approximate solution of "squaring the circle", there is another method based on an angle of 36 ° and giving more accurate results, but traces of its use are also absent).
The Sphinx is also not very clearly described by the resulting plan: the KN line runs somewhere near its nape (according to D. Ritchie's scheme, the line connecting the top of the Sphinx with the center of the 1st pyramid is inclined to the east-west axis at an angle of 51.76 °).
It turns out, however, that the dimensions of the 2nd pyramid can be described very accurately if its center is conventionally moved to the middle of the segment EF: the deviation from the "theoretical" size does not exceed 15-20 cm.
But why was the pyramid of Khafre shifted exactly at an angle of 17.8342 ° to a distance of exactly 371.14m (670.5 cubits)? One guess can be made about the angle, and the distance is, as it were, a second time determined by the angle of inclination and the side of the pyramid fixed on the line EF.
The next picture, despite its completely insane appearance, contains many surprising coincidences.
The figure shows the following:
- a line PQ was drawn, connecting the midpoints of KM and KN;
- the MQ line was drawn (its slope to the east-west axis is 17.838 °;
- the line O'F is drawn, where O 'is the middle of MN.
As a result, it turns out that:
The KM line intersects with the eastern apex of the 2nd pyramid at point T, such that KT = 1/2 KO '(the error is negligible);
The MQ line is parallel to the "transfer" direction of the 2nd pyramid (see the previous figure); the angle between these lines and KN is 70 °;
The three lines MQ, KN and O'F intersect at one point - on the southwestern side of the nemes - the headdress of the Sphinx. This point is clearly visible in the photo below.
The list of matches can be supplemented with one more. On the day and hour when the photo was taken (2000-05-01, 15:30), the Sun was at the point with coordinates: azimuth 229.12 °, declination 17.97 °. In other words, looking in the direction FO 'at point O', we would see the Sun there.
Of course, it should be borne in mind that the Sphinx has been restored many times over the past several thousand years. So the coincidence with the azimuth and declination of the Sun is most likely coincidental. Or maybe not by chance - there are too many random coincidences here …
Be that as it may, a preliminary hypothesis can be formulated:
1. Architectural structures on the Giza plateau - the pyramids and the Sphinx, are interconnected by many geometric relationships.
2. The architectural plan of the Giza plateau is based on three geometric elements: a square ABCD, a circle with a diameter AB and a rectangle EFCD, the area of which is equal to the area of the circle.
3. Internal elements of the plan are determined by geometric and solar-astronomical laws.
4. The architectural plan is definitely symbolic in nature with many hidden angular values (6 °, 10 °, 36 °, 70 °, etc.) and ratios, the meaning of which may someday be unraveled.
4. Pyramid of Cheops
The location of the Cheops pyramid centered at point K is determined at the level of "initial data", that is, axiomatically. And regarding its size, different considerations arise. First of all, the side of the pyramid is slightly larger than 1/5 of the side of the square ABCD: L1 / AB = 0.20061, which gives an error of 0.3%. Of course, such an error is too large compared to the engineering and geodetic accuracy of this structure.
By construction, point S "Sphinx" (intersection of MQ and KN) is exactly 1/5 MQ; this and many similar geometric designs can lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the geometric definition of the dimensions of the 1st pyramid. At the same time, a very simple and accurate interpretation can be offered based on an analogy with the above construction for the 2nd pyramid.
Move the 1st pyramid to the middle of MN so that its center is at point O '. Let us draw lines from the corners of the square C, D to the point O "lying in the middle of GH (this is the line corresponding to the perimeter of the circle inscribed in the square). The segments DO ", CO" pass through the corners of the pyramid with an accuracy of 3 cm.
Now let's turn again to points S, O '. The distance between them is 453.9 m = 866.7 cubits. What should be the height of the object at point O 'so that its angle of elevation from point S in relation to the horizon is 17.84 °?
H = (SO ') * tan (17.84 °) = 146.09 m.
The height of the Cheops pyramid, according to Petri, is 146.2 m. The top of the pyramid (pyramidion) is 2.7 meters high (there is no information about whether the top was and what it was).
This means the following. If the Cheops pyramid stood at point O ', then the shadow from its top would fall on the nemes of the Sphinx when the coordinates of the Sun are equal (239.5 °, 17.84 °).
Consequently, the position of the "displaced" pyramid O 'fixed by us, perhaps, in fact, has some kind of symbolic meaning; or the mythical Sphinx No. 2, if it once existed, could be at the point S ', where the shadow of the actually existing pyramid of Cheops falls.
However, it should be borne in mind that point S 'is outside the plateau, so finding anything there is unlikely. There is also point O '- the center of the "virtual" pyramid, the middle of the MN segment: here they discovered the valley temple of Mikerin (the excavations were mothballed for some reason) and the road leading to the 3rd pyramid.
A double play of shadows, a shadow from a non-existent pyramid on the face of the Sphinx - what is it: a key to a riddle, a symbolic reminder of sacred dates and events, or again, once again - a coincidence?
Archaeologists say: one fact is an accident, two is an accidental coincidence, three is a theory. Here, on the Giza plateau, we are dealing with at least a triple coincidence in the angles of 40.5 °, 17.8 °: the Sun at the time of the appearance of a shadow on the face of the Sphinx, the direction to the center of the 3rd pyramid and point O ', - the intersection of the axes of the 1st and 3rd pyramids, and finally - Pyramid of Cheops in 3 dimensions, transferred to point O '. Plus the second pyramid, where the angle of 17.8 ° shows the direction to the middle of EF - the point of intersection of the line, which is a continuation of the northern side of the 2nd pyramid with the North-South axis of the Cheops pyramid.
And yet, it seems appropriate to ask the following question: weren't there too many far-reaching conclusions from one accidentally taken photograph, which most likely recorded a coincidence of circumstances? But even if we discard the dubious "solar" associations (however, not so dubious - the Sphinx, Khor-Ak-Khemb, Khor-on-the-horizon is considered a solar deity by Egyptologists), a solid geometric base remains, which has clear confirmation in three dimensions (the angle of the pyramid, angle CDE, ratio 1: 3 and many others According to the testimony of specialists studying the geometric features of the architecture of ancient structures, the ancient Egyptians widely used methods of linear transfer of drawing elements (without rotation and scaling), which is clearly traced in the constructions we have considered.
In general, a hypothesis has a right to exist, like any version. Perhaps additional evidence or refutation of the hypotheses outlined here can be found. Most likely, many geometric constructions require a clearer and simpler approach, while still hiding some key elements. Perhaps the theory is wrong, and then the anticipated quick and quiet oblivion is exactly what it deserves. Worse, if there is at least a grain of truth in the hypotheses outlined on these pages: the author is well aware that it is practically impossible to break through the orthodox barrier of the "mainstream" of Egyptological science. Giza is a trap set thousands of years ago, but still successfully doing its job: blowing the brains out of those who are unable to solve the riddle of the Sphinx.
Part 2. Sphinx: in search of symmetry
This part will indicate the exact location of the second sphinx on the Giza plateau and provide geometric evidence for its existence.
There has long been a legend that the Great Sphinx on the Giza plateau once had a double. William Flinders Petrie spent a lot of time in search of the statue of the second Sphinx, which was mentioned in medieval Arabic manuscripts. But not only Arab sources mention the existence of the second sphinx. Figure 1 shows the image of the Stele of Thutmose, installed in the 15th century BC. between the front paws of the Sphinx.
Fig. 1. Stele of Thutmose
At the top of the stele is the image of Atum, the hidden supreme god - the image of Ra. In the Pyramid Texts (24th century BC) Atum is mentioned, in particular, in chapter 600: "O Atum, Guardian, you are getting higher, you rise like a Ben-Ben stone in Bennu's (Phoenix's) nest from He …" *). The surviving pyramidion of Amonmhat III bears the image of the winged disc Atum:
Fig. 2. Pyramidion with the image of Atum
Further on the stele, two Aker lions are depicted in the form of sphinxes, personifying sunrise and sunset, east and west:
Fig. 3 Lions Aker
Lions Aker, like Atum, are mentioned in the Pyramid Texts, which indicates the prevalence of the Aker cult during the Old Kingdom. But if the first of the two lions, Horus-m-Aket, Horus on the Horizon, has been perfectly preserved to our time, then did the second Sphinx ever exist? Undoubtedly, if we assume that there were once two sphinxes on the Giza plateau, you need to look for a second, missing lion somewhere in the west. In addition, given the desire of the ancient Egyptians to symmetry, it is safe to assume that the second Sphinx is located on the other side of the north-south axis, passing through the center of the pyramid … But which of the pyramids, the first or the second?
If we consider the stele of Thutmose as a map, it is safe to assume that the second Sphinx should be located directly under the pyramid of Khafre, exactly 59 cubits (30.8m) north of the middle of the southern side of the pyramid, about 41m below the outer surface of the pyramid.
Fig. 4. Stele of Thutmose and Map of Giza
In this case, the second lion (see Fig. 5) is also associated with the otherworldly "underground" world of the dead.
Fig. 5. Ruti Lions
This fact once again indicates that the second pyramid is a tomb (symbolic or real, of Set or Khafre) … Of course, it is not possible to test the hypothesis, since no one in Egypt will give permission to drill a 41m deep well in the Khafre pyramid. And if it suddenly happened, then, quite possibly, archaeologists would have found in this place a chamber with the symbol of the second Sphinx, or even an underground passage leading to the unexplored depths of the Giza plateau …
Fortunately, drilling wells in pyramids and other risky activities may not be necessary. The geometry of the structures on the Giza plateau clearly indicates that the second Sphinx was built (or copied) on the other side of the north-south axis of the second pyramid symmetrically to the first Sphinx. Let's see this by taking another look at the map of the Giza plateau:
Fig. 6 Pyramids and Sphinx on the Giza plateau (see explanations in the text)
The north-south direction corresponds to the lines oriented strictly vertically from top to bottom. The east-west direction corresponds to the horizontal lines from right to left. Therefore, hereinafter, for simplicity, we will call the east-west axes horizontal, and the north-south axes - vertical.
Based on Petri's data (see Giche trap, part 1), the line connecting the tops of the 1st and 3rd pyramids C1C3 is inclined at an angle of approximately 52.165 degrees to the horizontal axis. Let BD be the vertical axis of the 2nd pyramid, and AC the horizontal axis along the figure of the Eastern Sphinx; point C corresponds to the occipital part of the Sphinx's head (see part 1, updated data on the location of the Sphinx by Ritchie and Cox), and point A (the occiput of the hypothetical Western Sphinx) is symmetrical about the BD axis. Point B is built at the intersection of the vertical axis of the 2nd pyramid with the continuation of the C-C1 line connecting the back of the Sphinx's head with the top of the 1st pyramid.
Point D is symmetrical to point C relative to the vertical axis of the 1st pyramid C1O and lies by construction on the vertical axis of the 2nd pyramid.
It turns out that this figure is characterized by the following properties:
1. The center of the 1st pyramid is exactly in the middle of the BC line
2. Point D1 is located almost exactly on C1C3 (deviation less than 30 cm)
3. The distance AC1 is twice the distance CC1, that is, the second Sphinx is twice as far from the top of the Cheops pyramid as the first Sphinx.
The presented construction is unique, since there is one and only one type of isosceles triangle, in which the medians are equal in length to the lateral sides (i.e. AC1 = AB = BC = CA1). The angle at the base of such a triangle is arccos (sqrt (3/8)) = 52.238 degrees, which is only 0.07 degrees different from the angle of inclination of the C1C3 line connecting the tops of the 1st and 3rd pyramids (hence the deviation of point D from C1C3 by 30 cm) … Moreover, the median AC1 intersects the axis of the 3rd pyramid C3M at point N, which lies on the horizontal line coinciding with the north side of the 2nd pyramid. Thus, there is a connection between the relative position of all three pyramids and the size of the second pyramid … Well, if all this turns out to be another coincidence, I'm ready to eat my own hat. In the end, all of this is not so difficult to verify:it is enough to move 560 m west of the 2nd pyramid (as far as I remember, in these places there is nothing but a bare desert) and dig a little in the sand. It is clear that even this requires concessions, licenses, hiring local workers, etc., so it will hardly be possible to test the hypothesis. However, if anyone has doubts that this construction is not a figment of fantasy, there is still some additional data.
According to Petrie's measurements, the length of the side of the 2nd pyramid is 8474.87 inches, or exactly 411 cubits if the cubit is considered 20.62 inches. Accordingly, the height of the 2nd pyramid is exactly 274 cubits, since the angle at the base is 53.13 degrees (the seced pyramid is 3/4, as in the triangle Maat3: 4: 5). The length of the lateral side (i.e., apothem) of the 2nd pyramid is 365 1/3 cubits. Perhaps this value is related to 365 days, i.e. duration of one year, then the height of the pyramid corresponds to 274 days or nine months. Another manifestation of Maat?
But back to our drawing. Having measured the distance from north to south from the center of the 1st pyramid to the axis of the Sphinx, we get C1O = 822 cubits = 411 * 2 cubits.
Fig. 7 The profile of the Khafre pyramid enlarged 4 times on the plan of the pyramids
Further, if you measure the triangle C1MO, you can get the following:
1. Angle MOC1 = 53.13 degrees, equal to the angle at the base of the 2nd pyramid;
2. The distance MC1 is equal to 1096 cubits, that is, exactly 4 times the height of the 2nd pyramid.
The MOS1 triangle has dimensions of 822, 1096, 1370 cubits. The profile of the second pyramid is a triangle 411/2 = 205.5, 274, 365.333 cubits. The first triangle is four times larger than the second.
Therefore, the distance between the vertical axes of the 1st and 3rd pyramids was not chosen by chance: it is equal to the quadruple height of the 2nd pyramid. Similarly, the distance between the horizontal axes of the Sphinx and the 1st pyramid is equal to twice the length of the base of the 2nd pyramid. Is it a coincidence? Or proof of the existence of a single (or at least consistent) architectural plan for the Giza plateau?
These questions could be answered by the second Sphinx …
ALEXANDER TEMAROV