>Sorry Dave…it never happened and there is no evidence to support the concept of G1 completely encased with imported angular stones...it’s a simple fact…!<

I think you need to take the advice of Piazzi Smyth who was similarly confronted with someone who claimed that the Great Pyramid had not been cased.

He describes the person as "only too faithful examples of the small extent of information on which many persons, of commanding social rank, will yet persist in speaking most authoritatively on both the present, and the long past, state of the Great Pyramid. Yet the doubter about the casing-stones should at least have read the accounts of Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny, and many early Arabian authors, who describe what they saw before their eyes when the casing was still complete, and eminently smooth and beautiful"

I would also add the following to the reading list:

Maragioglio & Rinaldi Volume 4 p.16 "...some fragmentary blocks are still to be seen a little way down from the actual summit".

Rutherford "Pyramidology" Vol 4 p.1298 "...a most interesting find of some fragmentary blocks of casing stones just a little way down from the Pyramid's summit"

Professor Jacques Vandier "Manuel d'Archéologie Égptienne" p.30.

When Smyth visited Giza in 1864 he describes the vast piles of rubble that masked the bottom of the sides of the Great Pyramid. Amongst this rubble were numerous pieces of "casing-stones fragments with the angle" intact ("Our Inheritance at the Great Pyramid" p.26). All these pieces were well above the level of the first course. Perhaps you would like to explain how they managed to "migrate" upwards through the rubble from the base? Obviously they could only have come from higher up on the pyramid.

You also need to explain the numerous "backing" or "packing" stones which are still in place on many layers. These are distinct from the ordinary core blocks as they are cut to receive the casing stones. They make no sense at all if the casing stones were never placed.

There's so much evidence for the casing of the Great Pyramid that your claims carry no weight. Your arguments are circular in that you merely refer back to your own mathematical construct and not to the physical evidence such as I've quoted above.

Posting a mathematical puzzle as if you have some "answer" which we are meant to find suggests the Great Pyramid can be solved like a game of Sudoku and only serves to disguise the fact that you have no evidence at all for your claims.

I also find your habit of suggesting that Petrie somehow "knew" he was wrong but kept up some sort of pretence to be particularly misleading. In a previous post, some time ago, you spoke about Petrie and one of his "errors" and then said "and he knew it". You were therefore claiming his tacit support for your work without ever providing the evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence you can't just cherry pick the work of a real researcher to make your own efforts appear valid without justifying them on their own merits.

Jon

www.egyptarchive.co.uk