> Its always like this when the question posed has
> little to nothing to do with Egyptology opinions.
> Its like they feel its their duty to crush these
> 'orgies of fantasy' and save us from ourselves.
> I'm totally in favor of anyone posting claims and
> questions specifically engaging Egyptology to
> defend their positions. Its completely
> appropriate for them to jump in and commence the
> arguments. In fact I applaud it as a necessary
> conversation. But the other half of these
> discussions are specifically brain storming on
> subjects that zero people can 'WIN' based on
> evidence. So its such a lazy self indulgent
> antisocial impulse to jump in on these
> discussions. But then its not surprising.
> Denial and impulse control go hand in hand.
> That's an interesting idea you mention. In that
> case it seems you see the lower portion as simply
> a ram pump pool contained by the surrounding moat.
> Creating a water source or artificial lake with
> no other particular purpose other than a water
> source. Is that what your implying?
> The problems I have with that is that the final
> construction complete with casing stones then
> becomes an adaptation of convenience
> coincidentally benefiting from that early
> construction as if it was a design based on
> harnessing that early construction for its
> purposes. But that means its almost too
> convenient that the early construction seems
> almost a perfect system to serve that reset of the
> pyramids purpose.
> I see the entire system being perfect in its
> entirety with nothing appearing to be harnessing
> an earlier purpose as an adaptation. In other
> words, for me to follow that time line of
> construction, it would imply that the grand vision
> of that entire project was completed at the very
> beginning before breaking ground but that vision
> and focus was miraculously maintained spanning
> thousands of years.
> Its like that guy with the "TO DO" list from his
> wife had successfully put it off longer than any
> other man in history, and his wife gets the award
> for longest focused nagging victory of all time.
> Or that game was played over millennium
> maintaining the positions of nag and ignore like a
> religious devotion over generations.
I understand your objections and share your distaste for unsupported Egyptological opinion.
But I imagine there are numerous ways the Great Pyramid could come into existence organically. Even the nonsense that Egyptology believes probably isn't "really" impossible.
I believe human history and human progress started 40,000 years ago and was lost ~2000 BC. This opens up numerous more ways in which the pyramid could come to be naturally. This opens up ever more possibilities of functions for the pyramid.
Why Egyptology jumped to their conclusions and have never reconsidered them is beyond me.