> This thread is turning into a perfect example of
> such. Testing has been done on the scant remains
> found in the Step and Red Pyramid, but
> Egyptologists like Pete paint with broad strokes a
> picture that they can easily present as history
> without delving into the evidence. It looks like
> Pete is not interested in discussion, but only
> wants pats on the back for making a superficial
> video. Ego? Desire to be famous? He ignores
> questions, is not aware of the testing that has
> been done and displays no interest in becoming
Egyptology has the disconcerting habit of simply dismissing evidence that doesn't fit the paradigm. This is simply necessary because most of the evidence doesn't fit the paradigm or needs to be bolted on the frankenstein's monster they have created. Even today they've obnviously just found a passage that leads into the pyramid but they won't even talk about far less actually investigate. They never even wanted to do this testing and now that it is done they will not investigate and will not follow up with it systematically. Of course it might indicate vast riches in gold so I doubt it will be dropped entirely. The question is are they more interested in the gold or more afraid of looking for it.
I believe Pete Vanderzwet's video is actually pretty good for what it is but I agree with your characterization of what it is. It's just a restatement of the reasons that the orthodox assumptions arose. They simply don't realize that assumptions have no value even when they can't be tested but these can and it's highly superstitious behavior to believe something when it can be proven or disproven. Egypotology is highly superstitious and they believe they understand the pyramiud builders based solely on their interpretation of something they themselves admit is only magic and incantation!!!
Like all superstition it is illogical.
> Just as Pete's evidence is not evidence. He put a
> lot of weight in a mummified foot found in
> Djosers, yet he doesn't know that this foot was
> C14 dated as were other remains and the results do
> not agree with what he presents. In fact the
> results totally discredit what he presents, the
> Step Pyramid remains being dated to 8th-3rd cent.
> BC and the mummy attributed to Menkaure being
> dated to 7th-9th cent. AD with the coffin dating
> to 12th-9th cent. BC.
And when the pyramid dates to centuries before their assumptions they invent "old wood".
> Almost every piece of evidence he presents, when
> researched, turns to dust. In this day and age I
> can't believe that people are so willing to
> believe what they see on youtube.
They must refer to mountains of evidence and "cultural context" because the evidence doesn't support the paradigm. The only "mountains of evidence" are the pyramids they refuse to study and their own interpretation of incantation.
Everybody is a victim of confirmation bias but perhaps no one is more blind to the problem than Egyptology.
> And.... objections raised are ignored just as Pete
> is doing here.
> But come to GHMB to get your ego fix, where almost
> no one questions assumptions and anyone can appear
> to be an expert.
The sad thing is the discussion here is among the best on the net. Yet it's really a lot of guesses and people talking right past one another. I frequent a great number of sites and have looked at others following up leads. These sites range from woo to pure science and this site is one of the best for discussion and presenting real facts, information, interesting opinion, and great insight. Frankly the uTube that Pete Vanderzwet posted does fall into the category since it does present some real facts and some interesting opinion.
Posts like yours are insightful and oftimes informative.
As improbable as it seems I think we should all remember there is some chance that Egyptology is essentially correct. Of course there wrong that lack of ramps proves they were built with ramps and lack of bodies proves they were robbed because they were tombs. But their assumptions/ conclusions could be correct despite the methodology.