> Hi Jon
> Belated best wishes for an enlightening 2018!
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > M. J. Thomas Wrote:>
> > > And what, in your opinion, is wrong
> > > the view that the Great Pyramid of Giza is a
> > tomb
> > > (be it actual or symbolic) for an Ancient
> > Egyptian
> > > king?
> > >
> > > Robin (MJT)
> > For anyone to identify what is wrong with
> > your tomb hypothesis/view you
> > first need to explain exactly why it is
> > believe it to be a tomb.
> If by "anyone" you actually mean yourself, then
> such statement might in fact , be true.
> 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
I accept that it is a "speculative opinion".
I'm trying to understand what is the hard evidence to support Egyptological speculative opinion.
> IMO that study represents the minimum precursor
> requirement , in order to qualify to be in any
> reasonable position "identify what is wrong with
> it" !
Lack of hard evidence in the archaeological record.
> > Aside from myth, legend and woo woo, what hard
> > evidence do you have to support
> > view that outweighs all other possibilities??
> 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.
Is there evidence that all mastabas were originally constructed as tombs?
> This does not mean all pyramids were constructed
> for the same purpose.
> (However, as an aside I note with head shaking
> (face palm) amusement that your friend, colleague
> and collaborator, S Creighton has recently fired
> up his psychotic clairvoyant predictive powers and
> done a complete 180 deg turn and now predicts that
> up to possibly 54 kings are buried in G1!)
I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject under discussion.
> So far there is generator, a greenish electrolysis
> machine, some other mumbo from CK, all without
> any supporting coherent facts or explanation of
> how such a thing could work.
IMO speculation on a par with the tomb theory.
> So where is your speculative woo woo alternative
> ? What facts or evidence support it?
Does there need to be a proven alternative in order to determine the veracity of a tomb hypothesis?
There's little need to disprove the tomb theory as at present as there's no hard evidence to support it in the first place!
At this point there's little hard evidence for anything at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05-Jan-18 21:31 by Jon Ellison.