> Its such an immense red flag
> undermining the validity of their role in the
> necessary analysis required to make any
> intellectual progress on these mysteries, that
> anyone defending this limited and myopic
> 'discipline', and relying on its conclusions
> exclusively, couldn't possibly make a valid
> contribution to this discussion.
I wouldn't go this far but it's high time Egyptology's apologists wake up and demand science.
It's time to look at the tiny amount of evidence already gathered and seeing it afresh so that we can determine what new evidence need be gathered first. If Egyptology can't do this then I would hope the Egyptian government would show the wisdom to remove the Egyptologists and put actual scientists in charge.
This continual citing of sources and older versions of the same assumptions is very tiresome.
> The Great Pyramid is a far more interesting
> megalith than Egyptology would 'allow' us to
> consider, (perhaps for fear of losing their
> hierarchical authority on the subject), and to
> really dig into it desperately needs contributions
> from several more scientific disciplines.
And this is exactly why Lehner said the great pyramids must be studied with ones back turned to them last month. This is exactly why they failed miserably in using modern science and modern knowledge to understand the pyramid and its nature. This is exactly why after not getting any reasonable Egyptological hypotheses about the nature of the thermal anomaly I predicted, they merely dropped the subject like a hot potato.
How anyone can continue to support Egyptology and their 12th century methodology is beyond me.
> But if anyone from any other scientific discipline
> were to peruse these posts out of budding interest
> in joining the discussion, we'd lose them and
> their interest fast, if they have to plod through
> a representation of how painful and
> trogladitically closed this intellectual exchange
> will be for them.
Indeed! We are each treading the same ground and talking past one another because a conversation can't be founded in reality when there is no data. They simply never needed data because they used et als and the status quo.
> So, as I've said in the past, stop engaging these
> dead end egyptologists because the next great
> contributor is slowly backing away and shaking
> his/her head.
The problem is that most individuals don't have the time to actually study many subjects. Then when one gets interested in pyramids they can get sucked in by Egyptology. I, myself, nearly went that way when my budding theory hit its first apparent roadblock.