> Given that other contextual evidence showing they
> were tombs, it is supportive, not circular.
Context is not evidence per se, it is used to fill the gaps of a lack of solid evidence. And what is your contextual evidence? Any different or more detailed than what Pete has given?
> Besides, I did not say anything about the size of
> the structure, merely that passages were
> deliberately designed to mislead would-be robbers.
OK, I got it. I want to hide the body of President so I build the largest building EVER but then I make complicated passages to fool the robbers. Now I didn't fool them one bit with the giant neon sign, so what would make me think passages would fool them? In essence you're saying the pyramid builders were stupid. Too stupid to realize 400' of stone would not be a giant invitation. If they were made 400' underground, you might have a case. But you seriously insult the intelligence of the pyramid builders with this assumption.
> 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.
It means there were new generations of architects. What their intentions were originally, is speculation.
> The fact that large stones, alternate mechanisms, and
> hidden passages exist in and of themselves
> highlight an intent.
What that intent was, you have no evidence whatsoever to show.
> Well, what do suppose the
> intent was? Please share why you think
> these designs were incorporated.
They were purely functional, but not as tombs, barring the tiny heaps of bricks, as ck says. They make absolutely no sense as tombs. We just haven't figured out what the function was. Now I come at this from a different angle, being a woman. My estrogen world is not built on having all the answers. I understand the menfolk must have authority, absolute answers that build thrones. I have nothing to lose by keeping an open mind.
> Given that a many others had remains in them, yes,
> it makes sense they were for internment.
Many others from the same time as the pyramid builders? Now you know they can't possibly be dated, and you know there are not many that had remains and that most of those remains are mere fragments.
> Pete just presented an hour-long video giving that
> evidence. Quite an odd use of the phrase
> 'absolutely no', I surmise.
Pete gave misinformation. He did not state that the mummified foot was dated to.....
The supposed remains of Djoser can be considered as belonging to Saite, Late Period or Early Ptolemaic secondary burials inside the Pyramid.
He presented a false image of the remains and their significance. Remains 2000 yrs younger than the 4th dyn cannot possibly be evidence for a tomb. That would be beyond ridiculous.
> You understand nothing about me. Do you know me?
> Are we friends on Facebook?
Friends on Facebook? Seriously, what is this a high school forum.
> 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.
Not bizarre at all. If you are impressed with Pete's video it would indicate you do not have an in depth knowledge of the "remains" found in pyramids and the differences in construction.