Manu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until you get a permit to probe it,
> I wouldn't waste time casting doubts.

So you're suggesting that so long as Egyptologists are afraid to do actual testing and real science on the pyramids (such as carbon dating the paint), that all of the assumptions stand.

I certainly take your point that there is more evidence tying "Khufu" to G1 and it definitely appears he was king during some of the time of its construction but to use the lack of evidence as justification and support of the status quo is disingenuous. It is akin to saying the lack of bodies proves these were tombs and the lack of inclined planes proves they dragged stones on ramps. It is the same as saying the lack of booty proves they were robbed and that they were robbed proves they were tombs.

Lack of evidence never proved anything. At best you can say that lack of some evidence is consistent with theory but in this case it would not apply because there is no "theory" without the assumptions.