> What is being talked about here is the strike of the dipping
> stratigraphy on the plateau (i.e. the limestone bedding). In
> geology dipping beds appears horizontal along the strike
> orientation... lining them up on the strike of stratigraphy
> means the 3 pyramids are built on the same 10-15 meter thick
> unit of hard limestone stratigraphy.
Truth to tell I'm not sure what these words mean. It appears that they are merely a rephrase of those I took exception to with the expoundment that some part of the terrain that composes the strike is 10-15 meter thick limestone. This remains incapable of explaining why they would build with this orientation. If the center of the pyramids were on this harder bedding then one could claim that they wanted a firm foundation for the heaviest part of the pyramid but you've made no such claim and a strip of harder stone is simply explained by the "strigraphy" as you call it. A strip of harder stone is simply coincidental until it can be shown such a strip is relevant to building or siting. It is just as hypothetical as that the pyramids reflect the belt stars except in the latter case there is extensive evidence being presented in this very thread. I can't see that the pyramids being ordered along a line connecting stone of equal heights above sea level is apparent specific intent of anything at all. Even if specific intent wee apparent then why couldn't it be that they sought long and hard for the perfect place to show the belt stars?
Why would they line the pyramids up on a strike, harder strips of stone, or along the "stratigraphy"? If there is a reason then why aren't they lined up perfectly with this line rather thanm a mere approximation?
Why isn't it possible that the height above sea level mattered?
Why does everyone seem to know everything yet we don't have any answers to even the most basic questions?