> DUNE Wrote:
> > Hi Ori.
> > Take a look at this Youtube video from 18
> > , its the same one ive linked over at Jons AP
> > block work thread, and there's some good old
> > photos of the center line affect .
> > But one question i would like anyone here to
> > answer is ,Have those casing stones on the
> > side been pushed in closer to the core masonry
> > the reason i ask is because the video
> > says the casing stones on the North side were
> > always in that position, her reasoning ,
> > to her on screen overlay , is that the angle of
> > the existing casing stones where they are now
> > would hit the core masonry .
> > So if that is correct, who position those
> > stones into their present position, and when, ?
> > anybody.
> > [www.youtube.com]
> Hi DUNE, so far I'm pretty sure those casings are
> mortared down pretty tightly. The Edgar brothers
> published an illustration reflecting the
> observations of Petrie and Vyse that the mortar
> that cemented the small piece of casing that was
> still stuck
> onto the adjacent casing (which has since
> been removed) appeared to be as strong as the
> stone itself. Edgar quotes Petrie, "...three of
> the original casing-stones in situ,
> adhering closely by their original cement to the
> platform base of the building..."Edgar quotes
> Vyse, " Such is the tenacity of the cement with
> which they (the casing-stones) are held together,
> that a fragment of one that has been destroyed
> remained firmly fixed in its original alignment,
> notwithstanding the laps of time, and the violence
> to which it had been exposed." It makes one wonder
> whether the casings were deliberately cemented
> hermetically. Elsewhere in Petrie's Pyramids and
> Temples he obsserved that the mortar in the AP
> that seemed to cement the uppermost Granite Plug
> in place was found still intact with a piece of
> Granite Plug still stuck to it after the back 2'
> of the Plug were destroyed, presumably by early
> I don't know about how the upper core blocks sit
> in relation to the casing angle, but I would
> imagine that Petrie would have noticed that when
> he calculated his angles for each face and
> constructed his drawing showing that the casings
> did protrude from the core blocks. But Petrie
> certaintly wasn't right about everything.
> I must say that the graphic (starting at 19.38) is
> very misleading since it's drawn from a
> perspective that doesn't allow us to tell whether
> the angle would indeed collide with the upper core
> blocks. If anything, I would offer that it's also
> possible that a few upper core blocks may have
> shifted due to any number of causes, such as the
> immense disruption caused by removal of the
> casings, earthquakes that may have jostled a core
> block a few inches over the millennia, weather,
> and other sundry human interventions.
> In any case, that video doesn't really show us
> enough evidence to assess that issue.
Thanks for the detailed response
You make some good points that counter the videos suggestion that the casing stones are not in their original position, as you say the evidence of the cement is daming , and Petries on site angle measurements of the casing would have found that out, it would seem the authors of the video made their assessment straight off a photographs perspective , i just assumed they had been there and done the work, i must be getting a little gullible in my old age lol.