I think that any civilization advanced enough to build the Great Pyramid to such size and perfection might, just conceivably, be advanced enough to realize that to build it as a tomb to hold a single sarcophagus is a wee bit of an overkill.
So, if we grant the AEs at least a modicum of common sense, what might the simple act of looking at the GP, and thinking about its purpose, tell us?
Here is something relevant to the "Recovery Vault" theory I wrote near the end of an article I published in the July/August 2009 issue of Atlantis Rising magazine ...
"And finally, if we accept the dictum “form follows function” as an architectural law, we might recognize in the immense size and shape of the pyramids the ideal physical mass and form necessary to defuse the power of yet another mighty wave. Flood shelters, anyone?"
Here is a link to that article ...
As far as all the argumentative bluster that inevitably goes on here, who is to say that there is only ONE true interpretation about the Gizamid code? If one codebreaker is convinced about their own interpretation, and can put forward convincing arguments that it's correct, and another codebreaker can do the same, who is to say that they are not BOTH correct? Why must a second or third or fourth interpretion mean that only one can be right, therefore three must be wrong?
Would that make the code just TOO bloody marvelous, even for the codebreakers?
Wouldn't it be wise to build into the code certain avenues of deniability, for example, to counter unforeseen futures when you could be burned at the stake for (God forbid) believing in a Heliocentric theory of the solar system which stated that the Earth revolved around the Sun?
Wouldn't it be comforting to be able to say, under interrogation, "No, no. It's just a mathematical accident that the figures show a possible cyclical cataclysm or a sun-centered solar system. We were just figuring out how to give the Pharaoh's Ka the appropriate send-off. OK? Gimme a break, please!"
Well, it's getting late. Just my tuppence worth.