> It is somewhat naive to suggest that Egyptologists
> are a homogenous group...
Likewise about the notion that "the Fringe" is a homogeneous group.
> a coterie of likeminded
> individuals who are not interested in scientific
> validation or methodology, imho.
...although I'll acknowledge that I consider "the Fringe" to be the group that "homogeneously" feels the need to reconcile the inconsistencies and contradictions in orthodox/mainstream/traditional thought. And if textbooks and monographs by luminary Egyptologists reflect the notions of orthodox/meainstream/traditional Egyptology, then I do consider "Egyptologists" to be a largely homogeneous group in its apparent solidarity to resist challenges to the basis for the funerary context and origin of the massive engineering technology, especially during and before the OK. It's ironic that while many Egyptologists fully adknowledge the enigmas of much of that technology, few seem willing to address alternative paradigms that attempt to reconcile such enigmas.
> The current use of muon detectors in G1 are
> testament to Egyptology harnessing the latest,
> most advanced technologies to learn more about the
Or at least to attract more publicity and tourist revenue. For example, why all the pomp the day they reported the the advent of Scan Pyramids and what appears to be an anomaly behind that wall at ground level or the images of the wall in KV62 many months ago, anomalies which have been clearly suggested, but which have reached a dead end in further exploration? Where else do we see such grand worldwide press releases about such an esoteric field of work? They are certainly making noise about their current methodology and about the work they've planned to do in the future. But if they're actually learning anything more about the structure, they don't seem to be sharing it with the rest of us. Meanwhile, a $100 million museum is planned that will be funded largely by the Japanese?! Is this for the advancement of science?
> If chambers are detected, these can be
> breached to advance, complement or revise our
> understanding of the structure and its function.
We might not know if they are "chambers", but there certainly are anomalies that have been scientifically argued to be credible.So where is the investigation to further characterize these anomalies that prevents even a 5mm hole from being drilled so that a scout probe can case the place? What's the nature of the delay in investigation (and please don't take umbradge about it being "invasive")?
> This is indicative of the belief that there is
> much still to learn.
I don't think that's the issue. I know of no Egyptologist who believes there is nothing left to learn. But what they think has already been answered is what many of us are debating here since what they learn in the future often is interpreted within the context of what they think they already know.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?