One would think such magnificent engineering/construction marvels as the Giza pyramids and Sphinx would be the most well-documented, or otherwise known, items of ancient history. If the structures were all about the Pharaohs/early Egyptian empire (known or recorded history) and nothing else, wouldn't that fact be incontrovertibly obvious? Even without specific knowledge or proof of the science/physics behind the placement of the huge, perfectly-cut stones, certainly if they were built during known history, the legacy of such an astronomical accomplishment would be as common knowledge as the subsequent histories of people and things (such as buildings) that aren't in doubt; at least in the most essential facts.
There's also nothing in Egyptian history about the Egyptian army being swallowed by the Red Sea while chasing Moses and the (allegedly) newly-freed Hebrew slaves. There's definitely a connection between flimsy religious bullshit and flimsy, insufficiently-substantiated drivel (theories based only on guesswork) that's considered acceptable science today (i.e. the more popular Egyptology). It's (now) all about what's more "comfortable" or "acceptable" instead of what's simply true.
As I see it, there are 2 primary areas of great perplexity in the Giza structures that incredibly don't even register among the vast majority today. (There must be something to the collective amnesia of antiquity theory - something somehow positively monstrously hard-wired into us to forget/ignore the more distant past): The first is the Sphinx, which obviously at some point was only a lion and nothing else - no grossly disproportionate human head added later... or apparently much later. The second is the white limestone skins that once covered (presumably all of) the pyramids; as evidenced at the top of Khufu/Cheops. Where is there anything documented or otherwise known to the effect of the pyramids once looking like smooth, more solid, pristine white objects rather than the ugly brown, amateurish building blocks effect of this era? What happened to the limestone? Is there any evidence of it being used in latter structures or anything else?
Assuming there was a flood, the fairly soft (4 on the Mohs Scale) limestone would've made a good high water marker...
On a different note, this isn't to discount the possibility of the traditional eye-topped pyramid representing malevolent, Big Brother power, as the conspiracy literature claims. Perhaps the original purpose/intent of the pyramids was later hijacked by (too) pathological beings who are responsible for the (too-Hellish) world as we've known it. And perhaps a redefining of what a real, or most meaningful, eye (in the figurative-metaphysical) is is just what humanity needs.
The eye, one can safely assume, represents knowledge, and what better knowledge is there to start with than that which is blatantly obvious - the limestone skins? The real, or most real, eye represents the quest for truth about everything connected to the most important years of antiquity when the pyramids looked very different than today; which is represented by a small remnant of skin where the eye of the ancient symbolism we've known is. It's all about exposing as many general illusions as possible.
It's a call to awaken our own inner eye for truth/knowledge. It can represent collective, civilized power rather than anything monolithic-oppressive... Is it possible the pyramids were built before the Sahara (desert) existed? Could the wasteland have been caused by (a) massive flood(s)? I would wager the Sphinx shows signs of water erosion. In fact it's mighty obvious. The fact that lamestream Egyptology doesn't register it well enough is quite baffling.
I have an idea/theory, based only on imagination (prescience?), that the pyramid skins had etched writings of the Atlantean-or-whatever language, and the ones who took over in this era felt they had to remove all traces of a past, advanced civilization. It could also have had artwork (etchings) that might have had an eye design somewhere. Another theory of mine is the reason why they never finished removing the covering on Khufu is because of either some kind of advanced weapon that was used on them in the name of preserving a piece of (real) history, or someone was miraculously able to persuade them to keep an artifact of the true past... How the hell else would someone leave something so blatantly unfinished, "half-assed?"
I'm a subscriber, or definitely closely enough, to the (I think) circa 13,000 years old theory of the Giza structures, when the constellation Leo was more prominent, and the tops of the pyramids aligned with Orion's belt... Or forgive me if I've yet to come across anything that's convincingly debunked the theory.
I've Googled basically squat on "Sphinx lion gender sex," but I find it interesting that the Sphinx, the human-animal hybrid (in various forms), is often listed as having a woman's head. I've never seen a photo of the statue's nether region, but I'm pretty darn sure it's not clearly a male, and there's no clear indication the head (that I can tell) could have had a mane. Kind of puts a hefty damper on the whole macho Pharaoh routine. My final theory (at least for now) on this subject is that the original transition to the political (including religious) domination we've known was because it was then first decided what was/is the obvious: (pathological enough) male domination. The nervous Purvises couldn't just leave a prominent statue of a female lion for all to see, could they?
I want to believe the (presumed) lost era of advanced people had a better political and domestic balance of men and women than we do (overall), and I agree that (significant enough) domination by one gender is universally unwise. Conceivably the demise of lost era was the result of the imbalance of female domination. Whatever the case, we'll never get it right until we've reached that balance, cooperation.
Again, have a happy new year.