> The assumption that the passages were meant to
> hide a burial is based on the presumption that the
> pyramids were tombs. Circular logic.
Given that other contextual evidence showing they were tombs, it is supportive, not circular.
> Of course
> you've heard the objection that 'hiding' in a 400'
> pyramid is a most asinine contradiction. If they
> truly meant to "protect" a burial, they wouldn't
> put it in the most conspicuous building. Hence the
> Valley of the Kings.
Which were robbed/usurped quite easily, as were many others.
Besides, I did not say anything about the size of the structure, merely that passages were deliberately designed to mislead would-be robbers. There are a number of different styles used in other burials, and the mere fact they are different meant that the architects kept trying to come up with new ways to disappoint thieves. The fact that large stones, alternate mechanisms, and hidden passages exist in and of themselves highlight an intent. Well, what do suppose the intent was? Please share why you think these designs were incorporated.
> > Why build rooms so lavishly and put
> sarcophagi in
> > them, then hide it, if it wasn't meant to
> > the remains of the deceased?
> You assume that every box is a coffin. The
> sarcophagi in the pyramids are not coffins.
Given that a many others had remains in them, yes, it makes sense they were for internment.
> is absolutely no evidence showing they are.
Pete just presented an hour-long video giving that evidence. Quite an odd use of the phrase 'absolutely no', I surmise.
> But I
> understand evidence is not important to you.
You understand nothing about me. Do you know me? Are we friends on Facebook? If you did know me, you'd find very quickly that a requirement for evidence is at the core of my character. I would ask kindly to refrain from assuming you are aware of my knowledge or expertise. What a bizarre thing to say.