> However, insisting on an re-interpretation demands
> a viable evidenced alternative to be offered. If
> not tombs or memorials then what what the
I disagree. It is logically sound to suggest that an alternate hypothesis is required simply on the basis of the catastrophic contradictions remaining unreconciled in the current hypothesis. No alternate hypothesis is required in order to challenge the prior posit.
> Some suggest some sort of machine. However none of
> them (pyramids) exhibit exactly the same form. The
> form is a result of function. Only G1 has high
> internal chambers the rest are either below ground
> level or slightly above ground level, all
You could also apply that logic to argue that an 18-wheel semi and a diesel locomotive can't both be used for "transportation" because they have vastly different designs and construction. Until we understand the original function and product of those structures, it is not possible to reconcile their differences. Look at the differences in engine design of the 2016 Prius and the 1957 Chevy Bel Air. And that's only a separation of 60 years.
> Surely by now in this thread you are willing to
> accept there was a sarcophogus in G3 and likely
> many more pyramids and later intrusive burials? .
As I've said many times, I've always considered its existence to be a possibility. I've only insisted that there are other possibilities (including that it's not original to G3 or as ornate as Andrews depicts). The point is, we apparently still do not have any credible indication that the sealed crate reported to have been loaded onto the Beatrice actually departed Alexandria on the Beatrice.
> Several of the granite columns have beautifully
> carved precise heiroglyphs. Therefore this "lost
> civilization" (LC) must have used that form of
It could be an indication of another civilization, yes. Whether it's the same as the original builders, I have no idea. Perhaps the current translation is way off the map due to erroneous assumptions regarding funerary context. I continue to contend that we have no evidentiary reason to insist beyond a reasonable doubt that the AE of the Old Kingdom -- without there being any evidence of such granite-working tools and methods -- definitely did that work.
> Further as Thanos pointed out to me (I have
> thought more deeply about it) some of those
> statues such as attributed to Menkaure are
> similarly in hard stone yet they wear the crowns
> (like hedjet and nemes) that clearly the AE
> culture or the inhabitants that built mastabas for
> several millenia were still wearing.
I don't see the functional connection. A crown with jeweled-tipped metal spikes today might have its origins in something entirely different that's so far beyond our current cultural context that we would have difficulty understanding it. Just like the halos of religion and Zeus throwing his lightning bolt. The origins go so far back as to make the origins of most legends undiscernable.
> Is it your position that not only the AE found all
> this stuff abandoned , but then cobbled together
> a parody entire culture based on what they found?
My position is that it's possible. My position is also that there are too many contradictions with the currently held paradigm that begs an alternate explanation, no matter how far-fetched that explanation might be, as long as it is able to reconcile those contradictions.
> Or does this mean that this imagined LC (
> atlantis or the star-people etc) had the same
> culture, beliefs customs and writing symbols etc
> as that which was carried on by the less capable AE?
It's never been clear to me why some of the more intelligent posters among us here insist on dwelling on futuristic high technology. There are far too many enigmas in stonework that throw all of our preconcieved notion out the window. How do you explain the gigantic igneous "marshmallows" we see all over the Andes? No diamond-studded saw of steel cable is going to produce that kind of work. How do you explain the sharp inside corners of the Serapeum granite boxes within the context of dynastic Egypt?
> Hoping that you are now ready to unveil your
> coherent (even if partial) hypothesis and
> explaination of what you think is the alternative
> purpose for the pyramids?
The orthodox tenets have become largely untenable. We are at the beginning of essentially starting over. Too many contradictions have become catastrophic, rendering the traditional model unsustainable. I give credit to the internet as being an extremely powerful investigative tool that allowed what previously had been a relatively closely held body of findings that circulated among a very restricted discipline, to suddenly providing access to a far broader spectrum of cognate disciplines in the humanities and quantitative sciences which appear to be extremely relevant to the deciphering of the true origins of human civilization.
I certainly don't single-handedly claim to have all the answers about what DID happen, but it sure seems pretty clear what did NOT happen, and that's based on centuries of investigation and an enormous body of physical evidence. No one can reasonable expect that an entirely satisfactory alternative paradigm can be mustered up within a few weeks, months, or years. But that's no reason to deny what needs to be done about what we see before our eyes.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?