> charly wrote:
> > Of course there's no trace of such artefacts except in some
> > cases the sarcophagus. No willingness to find a trace???
> They could do a forensic evaluation. There's no certainty this
> prove anything one way or nother but what's the harm in
> > Just because a tomb has been emptied it can't be proven it
> > a tomb: this is what you are claiming since you dismiss
> > architecture as evidence.
> You need evidence to prove a tomb or anything else and lack of
> evidence can't prove anything.
Architecture counts as evidence whether you like it or not.
> I know everyone wants to rush on to the end and need a
> provisional theory about what these were for but this is the
> skeleton around which the meat of research has been wrapped.
> We have a frankensteins monster of a theory if the wrong bones
> and organs were used.
> We seem more adept at discovering new and more complex
> mysteries than in answering any questions. We need answers and
> orthodoxy doesn't even seem to be working in that direction.
> > Use of ridicule tactic again...
> This isn't ridicule, merely an observation. How does lack of
> evidence prove tomb yet no one claims this exact same lack of
> evidence proves his theory. Just because orthodoxy was first
> in modern times doesn't give them the right to usurp vacuums in
> the evidence.
You dismiss the evidence we do have, remember?
> > Forensic examination is used at crime scenes, not
> > archaeological sites, no matter how many times I point this
> > out, you still go on about it as if it has never been
> > mentioned. One could call that being unreasonable...
> And every time I've responded you don't know what you'll find
> till you look. I'm sure there are small gaps in the floor in
> places because no one is perfect all the time. Using modern
> tools the material in these gaps can be analyzed. It's not the
> same as reconstructing a crime scene but there's no word for
> reconstructing an event or events that occured 4750 years ago
> using the same tools. I'm not going to spell out everything I
> know about microscopic examination of evidence because you pick
> a nit with the word "forensic".
Then stop using the word "forensic". If you took the trouble to read "Egyptology Today" you would know that microscopic examination isn't exclusively used by forensic science.
> > The builders knew they were tombs, they put in the
> > and blocking systems after all... just like in the mastabas.
> Maybe thy did. And then they spoke out of their hats and said
> something different in the PT. I don't know. I'm just here to
> point out that what they literally said in the PT literally
> agrees with all the known evidence for how and why they were
> built. They literally said they weren't tombs.
It's meaningless to take the PT literally, once you accept this you can move ahead and actually learn something.
> > Not at all, intensive studies have been made and are still
> > being made. Because you just don't like the results of these
> > studies, doesn't give you the right to say they have been
> > marginalized.
> No one takes them seriously.
Untrue, blatantly untrue.
> Everything they left is said to be a part of some
> incomprehensible religion that required the king to memorize
> books so he could walk through ever thicker walls at night and
> people willingly agreed to jeapardize their lives and the lives
> of their families to these ends.
> If someone said such things about me in 4750 years I'd be
> spinning in my grave.
That's because you refuse to comprehend AE religion, if you had bothered to read even a fraction of the biliography provided to you, you woudn't make such strange reasonings in the first place.
> > You say that because you claim that "architecture proves
> > nothing", excellent example of dismissal tactic.
> It seems to me that anyone can understand the concept that
> "architecture proves nothing". Go to the Luxor in Las Vegas
> and ask people if it was built with ramps or where to find the
Ridicule tactic again!
> > Not a fact, just your faulty interpretation of the PT.
> I've made lists of their words where they said this dozens of
> times. Your refusal to read them doesn't change the builders'
> They said over and over in plain English and in many other ways
> that the king's tomb was in the sky and the pyramid was his
All the more reason to conclude the PT are not to be taken literally, a tomb cannot be in the sky; that's why they built burial chambers with sarcophagi in the pyramids.
> I put "ka" in quotes because it's becoming apparent that
> orthodox understanding of this word isn't quite right.
How would you know what "ka" means, since you don't know the language nor anything about AE religion? And then you dare claim that people who have studied this are wrong?
> The pyramid was the king's life work.
At least we agree on that.