> No. I am in down to business discuss mode. The Titanes are
> unleashed and my girlish observations are no match for the
> weapons forged by the Cyclopes and will not keep me from being
> imprisoned in the Pit of Tartaros.
> That Y chromosome can be brutal, I have to be tough like little
> ninja turtle.
I can dig it.
> I don't go along with the earthquake scenario. Also agree with
> you about pillaging. It doesn't have to be either or, there is
> a 3rd possibility.
I'm not saying earthquakes brought it all down. Just some of the edges. I don't think they were ever completely covered to begin with.
> Do we know this for sure? Do you have reference?
I assumed this was done by ancient peoples, the ones putting on the casing stones, but according to Jon Bodsworth the work was done by the Egyptian military several decades ago. He did not provide a source, so I would welcome one myself, but regardless-someone repaired it to keep it from falling down.
> But that is what I'm trying to point out. The section below the
> casing is in nice pretty rows, and below that is mayhem. Why
> the neat pretty rows ABOVE mayhem? The nice rows are missing
> more stones than the lower rows. I think you are saying the
> nice rows are intact as the builders made them, never being
> cased. But this does not explain why the nice rows are :
> 1) further recessed than the rows below them
> 2) not covered with debris
My thought was that being casing is done from the top down, the restorers who were trying to clad it prepped the top 3rd by removing some of the exterior to make it uniform then they built it back up by adding the blocks that would eventually be shaved flat. But they only did part of the job and quit for whatever reason. This is why the mayhem below is covered in debris whereas the recessed are not. The debris is from this process of not only recarving the core but shaving down the casing blocks after they were installed. Given they assumed they would keep going the kept the recessed part tidy as they worked.
> If the bottom rows were pillaged, then they should be further
> recessed than the nice rows above.
> Yes! I want LLW aliens, little lavendar women. Got a problem
> with aliens? I don't get this taboo with aliens. Like the
> universe isn't old enough or big enough to have spawned other
> life forms. MJT goes ballistic if it's mentioned. Guess we must
> just be so special that no other life form could exist let
> alone be more evolved than us. If SETI talks about them I don't
> see why we shouldn't.
No problems with aliens. Ancient or modern though the former in particular has become parody unto itself in some circles. I have pleaded their case here many times in other forums here. Even had a little discussion with GH about it here:
> I didn't see any (streaks not aliens) on freeways, or ancient
> Went on wild goose chase and could not find the same
> type of streaking. I did find similar in canyons and mountains,
> but nothing on buildings. At this point I have to call
> checkmate dude, cough it up or admit the streaks are unusual.
I have seen similar streaking to this on many buildings ancient and not so ancient including the freeway I drove on today. It is not "identical", I will certainly give you that, these things are also not polished flat angled surfaces of a pyramid 450+ feet in the air in a desert. It is not much of a mystery to me, but I am happy to stand corrected. To infinity and beyond!
> Your details are not forgotten. You bring up the enclosure wall
> & Sphinx; the whole layout of Giza is mind boggling. I haven't
> been there, yet, so it's hard to comment when all I can see are
> photos taken at a distance that do not show the elevation plan.
Go there. Whats stopping you?
> You talk of styles amongst the pyramids. In my mind style is
> related to function. Different function, different style.
Maybe, but in this case I think style is more based on ability and economics.
Look at cards. They all have different styles but serve the same exact function.
> aspects of 'style' would indicate same time frames, such as
> granite stones vs. bricks.
> Otherwise I have to wonder at the
> purpose of casing stones. If they had a practical application
> then their appearance on one pyramid and not another could make
> sense. Egyptology has brainwashed us into believing they were
Function is my choice. And it looks cool.