Audrey wrote:

> I didn't mean an explanation from you, I mean we need to know
> collectively, an answer of some kind from somewhere.

But you are the one who asked me to explain why I blocked out that section in the photo.....Should I not answer your questions from now on? I am confused.

Regardless, there is no "answer" from "somewhere", but if you can find one please share it with us. I have offered an explanation, not the explanation which the best we can hope for is to offer opinions and reach consensus.

> If it were so unstable that stones were falling off, they would
> still be falling off and the entire site would be a hazardous
> zone today.

There have been earthquakes as you know over the last 5,000yrs. It makes no sense these areas would be damaged from pilfering because there is nothing different about these stones than those of the core at the base not just of G2 but any of the pyramids. Why go through so much trouble high above the ground when you could accomplish the same task at or near ground level. Whoever was hacking at it was likely trying to get in somewhere, not remove stone for use.

And regardless, we can clearly see it was unstable as lover has re-posted pics above of its instability necessitating the need for support columns and structural repair in several areas, ergo we do not need to "wonder" if it was unstable or not. Supposedly this was done by the Egyptian military in modern times.

> Your reasoning implies what was loose has already
> fallen until a point in the casing was reached where it was
> stable and no more could fall.

No. What I am saying is the project proved was abandoned, possibly because of the inherent difficulties with instability of retrofitting G2 with cladding, and over time the weaker areas were susceptible to causes sufficient enough to cause damage, like earthquakes. If one weak block fell are you expecting for the rest to fall around it in nice pretty horizontal rows? Not going to happen lie that.

> Obviously the casing that is
> left is stable.

Now, after being shored up. I am sure if I looked there would be antiquarian reports of blocks dislodging once in a while.

> Were you warned to wear a hard hat when you
> were there? So they did make the casing stable, and fall off
> would not explain the uneven borders.

You make is sound like they are roof tiles that could just blow off in a breeze. Not the point at all. If a large earthquake happened and I was at the base of G2, yeah I sure would want a hard hat.

> > I wouldn't say the streaking was caused by weather, but
> rather
> > polution. Cairo is like an ash tray.
>
> Pollution wouldn't steak like muddy water. It would saturate or
> settle, but not run and feather out like a liquid.

You can see this same kind of streaking on the cement on any freeway you go to. I have seen it on many ancient ruins around the world and some not so ancient buildings. Not sure why this is something mysterious to you, but if you'd rather it be overspray from ancient alien rocket ship refuelling I'm ok with that too.

> I think you are bypassing significant details in the casing.

I don't think I am which ironically I would say the same about you with the details I have brought up.

On a personal note, you seem a little terse with me for some reason. Did I do something to offend you lately?