Date: April 09, 2018 03:11PM
Steve Clayton Wrote:
> Well...that just heightens the mystery. Erosion in
> the upper, but not in the lower section, of the
> Temple blocks. Those rectangular notches at the
> base are also interesting, as well as, the shallow
> shelves. Each Temple blocks is one piece. My only
> explanation, is that area was once filled in with
> stone, which protected the lower portions, and
> which long ago were removed for re-purposing.
> What else can it be? I suspect there was a
> bridge structure there, which aided in building
> the Pyramid. What confuses me, is above the 30'
> ft. mark, the building stones, appear to change
> into random sizes. Is this due to erosion? Core
> drilling would resolve that question, without
> penetrating more than 10 feet.
>>Note that many of those bottom rectangular niches are filled with what looks like cement. If that's a modern application, might those niches be the result of modern excavation equipment? (It's difficult to fathom that the Supreme Council would have allowed the defacing of an ancient monument like that.) If those niches were the result of modern heavy equipment, it would also indicate that those blocks weren't originally aligned when discovered in modern times and therefore required re-alignment by modern heavy equipment to form that wall. In that case, what force could have misaligned such megaliths in the first place?
On the other hand, if that cement is original and ancient (Dynastic Egypt vs. Roman Empire?), then why were the niches made in the first place, what were their function, and why was the cement so sloppily applied?
Meanwhile, as I look at those shallow horizontal shelves, they resemble upside down corbeling. Note that the shelves are not the same depth over their entire length, but rather some seem to curve back and blend into the plane established by the upper shelf, and this happens more so with the bottom shelf on several blocks.
Also, is that "erosion" pattern appropriate for wind/sand? I wouldn't think normal weathering would cause that kind of focal pitting. And why such an abrupt transition in that "erosion" pattern at about the 4' level? It almost looks like it was hit by extreme heat. And why is the degree of erosion and the remaining height of each block so different from each other?
Could it be that what we're seeing on that west wall of the Temple wasn't the originally exposes surface but rather what's left is the more roughly worked underlying subsurface that was originally concealed.
>>I've never "walked" down that path before and it sure has some interesting things to ponder, alright.
After much consideration, it appears that blocks were fitted where there is little erosion, and the upper section was under water. Water contains various minerals, which reacted in sections of the Temple stones, dissolving it. If it is true, the Pyramids took 20+ years to build, those Temple blocks were likely under water the duration of the build. Their top sections are also missing. How tall were they?
After all, they built those wall for a reason. The reason was to contain water. It fits the narrative.
How else can it be explained?