> Origyptian wrote: Another possibility is that
> we are the ones who lack the understanding of the
> means, ability, and knowledge to use their ancient
> scientific techniques.
> Truer words were never spoken! Insistence and
> persistent repetition of opinions mean nothing.
> Without a clear understanding along with actual
> evidence, one is only voicing an assumption by
> saying the pyramids were built by an ancient
> culture other than the Ancient Egyptians.
> Maybe I should ask, if a better use of time would
> be to engage in some actual investigative work
> instead of hopping whatever band wagon, supporting
> your beliefs, happens to be passing by. Maybe
> producing some real evidence, other than just a
> say so, supporting ones beliefs? Merely voicing
> unsupported opinions does not equate to actual
> research for the truth. History has demonstrated a
> truth found in both mainstream and alternative
> theories, erroneous opinions repeated often enough
> have the bad habit of becoming fact in the mind of
> the opinion holders?
> Which brings us to the next question: What
> constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt? What
> evidence is available beyond any reasonable doubt,
> supporting an antediluvian civilization being the
> builders of the pyramids?
There's already quite a bit of "real evidence" we can examine, thanks to the internet for making it openly accessible in recent years. And I don't know what additional evidence you can expect anyone to recover now that the authorities have basically declared a lockdown on any further research. Reeves can't even get a 1cm hole drilled through the back wall of KV62, and yet his cup runneth over with hard evidence to justify it, and yet you honestly believe there's a chance we'll get any more significant evidence about any other traditional tenet discussed here? That strikes me as a rather unattainable goal, but I hope I'm proven wrong. God help us for wanting to sample a stain on a wall or roof stone or collect some of the residual dust that still remains in any of those recesses for traces of metal, wood or other materials.
It's one thing to allow various "possibilities" but that's vastly different from attempting to triage those possibilities according to known principles of logic. Otherwise we could simply assume an alien origin of G1 is on equal footing with a Dynastic origin or any other civilization that came before them, and also assume there really were creatures with a human body and head of a jackal. Just because something may have a non-zero level of possibility doesn't mean it therefore has earned its place as an "equivalency" to other possibilities.
We are inundated with "Insistence and persistent repetition of opinions" that the tomb hypothesis is indeed fact, and yet no direct evidence supporting that notion and much that contradicts it. Likewise for many other traditional tenets that have become rather untenable the more they are scrutinized. In contrast, allowing the possibility that "the pyramids were built by an ancient culture other than the Ancient Egyptians" is the foundation of a working hypothesis, not an "assumption" or insistence of fact that decries any other possibility. It's a hypothesis drawn from supporting physical evidence and is not just an "opinion" fabricated from pure cloth. Meanwhile, where is the "real evidence" supporting the tomb hypothesis? Or might the tomb hypothesis be an example of "erroneous opinions repeated often enough have the bad habit of becoming fact in the mind of the opinion holders"?
When we look at the physical evidence from the Dynastic era, we see plenty of documentation of that culture expressing its thoughts about working with wood and stone, and while the principles depicted in those drawings follow clear principles of known logic today (ie, sleds, chisels, drills) while not hinting of much in the way of unknown principles (notable exceptions perhaps being the "light bulbs" of Dendera and the "helicopter" and "airplane" of Abydos), I’m not seeing much in the way of obvious scientific or engineering mystery indicated in those paintings and inscriptions. The enigmas are mainly in the artifacts in stonework that those paintings and inscriptions appear to be musing about but which those artists and scribes don’t seem to understand, themselves.
In my opinion, the answer to your "reasonable doubt" question is pretty simple. It depends on whose mind the doubt is tested. In the USA, it's entirely up to the 12 members of the jury to assess whether there is reasonable doubt even if every other one of the 300 million Americans disagree with that verdict. It makes no difference to me whether everyone else insists that this or that hypothesis is "fact". I apply my own evaluation of the evidence and construct a hypothesis accordingly. I don't follow mainstream (if anything, mainstream is more often eventually proven wrong), and I don't insist I'm right and try to convince others to change their mind. I simply argue my point based on my evaluation. I certainly never take the initiative to become disrespectful in issuing insults and sarcasm to others who disagree (civilly) with my perspective.
I wouldn’t say “evidence is available beyond any reasonable doubt supporting an antediluvian civilization being the builders of the pyramids”, but I’d say there is a preponderance of evidence supporting that notion over the notion of a Dynastic origin. In fact, I don’t see evidence at all that provides a compelling argument for a Dynastic origin in the first place.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?