> Hi Thanos5150,
> That's right. When Greaves came to Giza, at least 20+ courses
> of Menkaure were covered by sand.
> The job of stone removal was a difficult one (Menkaure
> abandoned because it was just too hard.) Just makes one
> appreciate the extreme difficulties which the builders were
> faced with but managed to complete.
> That granite at the base of Kafre. Maybe some courses against
> the bedrock and higher were faced with granite.
People don't even seem to appreciate that destruction is a hundred times easier than construction. They didn't need to build ramps to get these stones to the ground. They didn't need to shape each stone to fit perfectly. They didn't need to lug vast quantities of supplies and men to work on the top.
Yet the job of tearing this down was a herculean feat in itself that Egyptologists refuse to investigate or consider. Some of the Egyptological hypotheses about this are just as absurd as their guesses about how it was built. They are perhaps even more absurd because there are far fewer ways it could be destroyed than made. One "theory" holds that the stones were removed from below and the stones were dragged along the ledges and dropped down the center creating the grooves and bifurcated sides!!!! One has to be far removed from physics and nature to invent such an idea.