> However, a reasonable objective study of the
> discoveries made in Egypt, beyond a primary focus
> on just one pyramid, even if such study
> accompanied by considerable scepticism, then that
> "anyone" would be in no doubt why Egyptology
> reaches its speculative opinion, based on what
> evidence actually found (as opposed to just
They failed to find any evidence! Anything that didn't fit their expectation was simply dismissed as "details'. They never managed to find any stone draggers or even attestation for the word "ramp". They never found a single instance it was called a "tomb" in ANY of the known writings nor a single instance that there was said to be a body in it.
From this they extrapolate it was a "tomb".
We've seen the arguments and their weaknesses. The only way to reach the conclusion that any were tombs is to start with the assumption. Indeed, the very fact that all Egyptologists believe in tombs is simple proof of it.
> In anticipation of a follow up request to lay out
> some facts, of which you then might wish to
> manipulate to argue against, then I would suggest
> a reasonably thorough study of mastabas. You
> will find many exhibit very similar chamber
> arrangements as found in most pyramids, some
> include granite stone workings, and the collective
> body of evidence leaves little wriggle room for
> 'imaginative independent researcher's' to dispute
> that they (mastabas) were constructed as tombs.
The beauty of studying the mastabas is they tell you the ACTUAL titles of the builders. Not one supports Egyptological beliefs.