Thanos5150 wrote:

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

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.

> 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.

Nevermind, wasn't important


> 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.

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.

> 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.

Do we know this for sure? Do you have reference?

> 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.

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

If the bottom rows were pillaged, then they should be further recessed than the nice rows above.

> 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.

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.
I didn't see any (streaks not aliens) on freeways, or ancient ruins. 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 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.

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.

You talk of styles amongst the pyramids. In my mind style is related to function. Different function, different style. Some 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 aesthetic.