The following figure shows the dimensions calculated for my pyramid's design model. My pyramid's model was designed without making reference to any of the Great Pyramid's measurements. Howewer if you compare the dimensions calculated fron my drawing with those as measured at the Great Pyramid, you will find that they are very similar, or equal. Therefore, using my computer model, it can be determined, very accurately, the distance between any two points in the Great Pyramid.

I believe that the drawing plan developed by engineers for the Great Pyramid, based on the structure measured dimensions is short in its measurements and should be considered incomplete. However, there are enough dimensions measured by Egyptologists, engineers, surveyors and investigators to make a good comparison with the dimensions calculated using my computer's model.


Cross sectional view of the Plan of the Great Pyramid's model, as designed by the author.


The Great Pyramid

I compared the dimensions as measured in the Great Pyramid's structure with those calculated in my pyramid's model plan. I found that the most outstanding dimensions between both models are as follows:

1. My designed model shows the inclined measurement of the Grand gallery, at the ceiling, from north to south wall, equal to 156.81 feet. This value is exactly equal to the inclined distance, in feet units, measured for the same space in the Great Pyramid.

2. The location of the “great step” is located in the same position as in the Great Pyramid. Its calculated vertical size in my pyramid’s model is 2.71 feet (32.5 inches). Sir W. M. Petrie indicates that the top corner of the step has been raised. He measured it in relation to the level of the south wall of the Grand Gallery and it should be 32.5 inches.

3. The downward step at the entrance of the Subterranean Chamber is shown in my design of the model pyramid. It shows a measurement of 32.5 inches. Actually, it is only about 29 inches in the Great Pyramid, but we know that the chamber’s floor was left unfinished and it has been badly disturbed.

4. The inclined descending passage length (344.91'), from the pyramid’s entrance to the location where the passage changes to horizontal, is evidently equal in both designs. It is interesting and important to see how this distance is set in the geometric process.

5. In my design, the length of the horizontal section of the descending passage leading to the subterranean chamber is 26.79'. This distance is equal to the corresponding horizontal section of the descending passage in the Great Pyramid. Besides, both passages are located at 100' underneath the pyramid’s base.

6. The alignment of the ventilation shafts corresponding to the Queen’s chamber in the model’s pyramid is equal to those on the Great Pyramid. It is said that the southern shaft, in the Great Pyramid, do not have it exit at the pyramid face. In the pyramid’s model, both elevation angles are 38.17271º. Their length, as projected to their exits (in the north and south faces), including their horizontal section at the entrance openings in the chamber, is 244.90'.

7. The alignment of the ventilation shafts in the King’s chamber, in the pyramid’s design fit exactly the angles and measurements of the corresponding shafts in the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid. It is interesting the fact that the length of the shafts, originally design at the pyramid’s axis, did not fit correctly in their length. However, when they are moved to the new shaft axis location in the King chamber, they fit accordingly with those of the Great Pyramid. This is extremely important, since there are too many variables involved for getting the correct location.

8. Sir W. Flinders Petrie in his book The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1883, indicates that the exit of the north air channel is located between layers 102 and 103. The elevation over the base, for layer 102 is 260.10 feet; and for layer 103, is 262.60 feet. The elevation over the base calculated for our pyramid’s model is 261.08 feet, then, the exit of the shaft would be also between layers 102 and 103.

9. Petrie also indicates that the exit of the south air channel is located between layers 103 and 104. (Note: The elevation over the base, for layer 103 is 262.60 feet; and for 104, is 264.93 feet. The exit elevation for the model pyramid shaft is 263.34 feet. So, the shaft will exit between layers 103 and 104.

10. The section of my designed model located underneath the base of the pyramid provides a logical and reasonable explanation as to the existence and alignment of the underground passages and chambers built under the Great Pyramid. Other investigators and scholars have never considered this aspect before.
11. ¡Very important!  Sir Flinders Petrie states in his book that the length from the north wall of the Grand Gallery to the center of the niche in the Queen’s Chamber is exactly 137.40 feet. This is also the exact distance obtained in my pyramid’s model.

12. If we continue with this comparison exercise it will be found that all distances, angles and characteristics of the two designs prove to be equivalent. As I have stated, if you do not believe me, go ahead and find it by yourself.

It is important to stress the following facts for the pyramid's model     plan:

a. The pyramid's model design was done following the geometry of a circle.

b. For the design, no numbers or calculations were made. The design was completed without measuring angles, including the ventilation shafts.

c. After the whole pyramid was geometrically designed, only one measurement was introduce in the design, that is the radius of the circle, which was made equivalent to the height of the pyramid's model.  

d. The height of the model pyramid was set equivalent to the product of Pi (= 3.14159) and 153. The product is 480.6637 ft. This is the only number used to calculate the complete pyramid's model after been designed.

e. All angles, and dimensions were calculated based on the proportionality of its radius and the corresponding section. Up to here, we do not need to see or know about the Great Pyramid's existence. Our model's design was completely independent from the Monument.

f. At this time, we can compare both plans. The drawing plan of the Great Pyramid was traced based on its physical structure and measured distances. The angles were also measured.

g. After a complete comparison of measurements, finding them equal, how can we dare to attach the results of this comparison to coincidences? There is only one solution, and that is both designs are equal. Scholars and Egyptologist should investigate and demonstrate how the Egyptian engineers did their work. They must know the Perfect symbol and its merits and characteristics. If so, they should also know about the use of the Phi function. There is no doubt that it was used in the eastern wall of the Queen Chamber to set the center location of the niche. If they placed a statue of a deeded in this niche, it shows us that Phi was important... they center the deity in this location.

    h. From another point, we can do the same procedure with other pyramids, like Chephren, Micerinus, Bent pyramid, The Red pyramid. With the Bent Pyramid, it shows us that the apparent failure of the structure did no exist. It is just and excuse from the evaluators to dismiss the searching for the correct answer. The Pyramid was designed and built in that way. The Red Pyramid represents the upper section of the Bent Pyramid. The lower section of the Bent represents a very simple pyramid; the pyramid designed using the geometrical configuration of the square circumscribed by a circle. In other words, if you trace a desired square over the terrain construction, set the diagonals to mark the center and trace a circle touching the four corners of the base, that would be the pyramid. The radius of the circle corresponds to the pyramid's height. Construct the pyramid from the four corners to the top. In the Bent plan, that simple design was superimposed with the design of another pyramid, which for the contrary, shows the Phi function φ in its maximum expression.

This particular pyramid's design was superimposed with the other to create the Bent Pyramid's design. This superimposition deserves a little more explanation. This configuration corresponds to Category 6 of pyramids designs, shown in chapter 10 of this book. It is the special case when the circle is inside the square.


The square circumscribed by the circle

In the following special case, the ratio between the circumference of the circle and the perimeter of the square (C/ P) = (p / f³). Note that the perimeter of the square is equal to the diameter of the circle multiplied by f³, or P = D f³, and also that the height or radius R = 2 (b) /f³. That is, the ratio (C / P) = p D / 4 (b) = p D / P = p D / D f³, which finally shows that (C / P) = (p / f³). Having (C / P) = (p / f³), it can be established that the perimeter (P) of the square base for this pyramid would be equal to the diameter (D) of the circle, multiplied by f³, that is, P = D f³, and that R = pyramid’s height = 2 (b) / f³.


The circle is inside the square with a special configuration

The Bent Pyramid,

Superimposed both pyramid's designs


This has to be mentioned: the superimposition of one design over the other give us the two angles of the inclined faces. As calculated from the design drawing , the lower angle for the Bent is 43° 21' 30"; the upper angle is 54° 44’ 8". The vertical distance for the change in angle occurred at 154.60 ft elevation from the base.

"This is the time to speak and to speak loud. These are exactly the two angles measured at the structure and also exactly the vertical distance measured for the change in angle elevation. No sir, these are not coincidences, these are facts. You, who changed the Egyptian history, do something to reinstall the intellectual status of the knowledgeable Egyptian engineers".

In reference to the Great Pyramid design, my understanding was that the important things between these two drawings, my model and that of the pyramid, required that the general lay out in both designs were in agreement, the dimensions were under acceptable tolerances, my drawing plan could explain not resolved conditions in the GP, and that my geometrical process could satisfy the design of this and other pyramids. As far as my reference books, my work met these requirements.

For example: with my method it can be explain how the Grand Gallery was designed. How the “great step” was created, the relation between the underground construction of corridors and chambers, even the design configuration.

It is clear that I want to sustain and prove, beyond doubt, my theory about the Great Pyramid’s design. My theory established that it was designed using the figure of a circle and that a special geometric configuration is involved, requiring a geometrical process to create it. This is the way I designed my pyramid’s model. My geometrical configuration, which I called the Perfect Symbol, establishes that the length of line PQ and QN (are equal) must be equal to the same space as measured for the Great Pyramid. I needed to prove them equal to establish the relation between the Great Pyramid design and the figure of the circle. If these distances do not agree, my theory is wrong. I clearly understand that. But if agree, I am right in my theory.

I tried to investigate with and engineer, knowledgeable in Egyptology, working in Egypt, which had a website in the Internet. I asked him to draw a circle to his pyramid's drawing using as radius the pyramid's height. Besides, I asked him to extend the inclined lines corresponding to the pyramid's faces, to intercept the circumference of the circle. The required distance was the length from the top of the pyramid, following the face lines to their intersection with the circumference.

The requirement was to verify if the inclined sides PQ, and NQ of the triangle PQN shown in my drawing, was equal to the length of the same space in the measured pyramid. The answer was, "No, the measure is 440.34 cubits, which is not equal to the 440 cubits of the pyramid".

Although he was right in his answer, the quantities were not equal. But this means that he was not thinking as an engineer. There is a difference of 0.34 cubits. However, since one (1) cubit is equal to 0.5236 meters = 1.71782688 feet, this difference represents only 7 inches, in about 9,069 inches that have the length of the sides of the Great Pyramid (Ref. Petrie - 9,068.8 inches). (Ref. Lehner - 9,068). Will not you consider these 7 inches within acceptable limits of tolerance? Specially, when the exact original height of the GP is unknown, and there are still doubts in reference to the original slope angle of the faces. Besides, his method to trace the drawing was completely different from mine.

Most important, you should remember that the length of the actual sides of the Great Pyramid show a difference of more than 7 inches in their lengths and it is assume that they are equal. (I. E. S. Edwards: page 99, (Survey Department to Egyptian Government): north = 755.43, south = 756.08, east = 755.88, west = 755.77. The largest difference in the sides is (756.08 - 755.43)(12) = 7.8 inches, which is more than the 7 inches difference you found in the distance. I am sure that the original Egyptian’s plans showed that the four base’s sides were equal. The point I was trying to call your attention was that line PQ and QN, in my designed model, represents the length of the base of the GP, a unique characteristic of my configuration. Any other author or investigator has never reported the equalities between these two distances. This requirement is basic and necessary to relate the Great Pyramid design to the figure of the circle. This is an interesting characteristic, among others, in reference to my geometrical configuration.

Since the way I designed my drawing was completely different from his, there is no reason for myself to foresee that those two measurements were equal if not were because my pyramid's model. I read it from my drawing plan.  Notice that for this, I do not need the original units of measurements used by the Egyptians. It does not matter if the Egyptians used cubits, pyramidal inches, royal cubits, or any other unknown unit of measurements. Remember, we can convert the different types of units.

In my case, if both corresponding dimensions, that is, those in my drawing plan, and those in the Great Pyramid’s structure, expressed in feet units, are reasonably acceptable, is sufficient. Therefore, I considered that I hit the nail in the head with his answer.