> As far as I'm concerned, Reisner's ruse about
> Hetepheres was indeed pure unadulterated hoax. He
> had zero basis for making his claim and was too
> intelligent to not realize he was not at all
> relying on evidence but rather was carfefully
> using the "confidence of his claim" to stack the
> deck of credibility in his favor.
Since you are making the claim this was a hoax, please support that claim. Do you think it is a hoax based on the sole assumption it was an incorrect interpretation? Also, being labeled a hoax makes the discussion explicit that M. Reisner had an agenda. What was that agenda? Why do it? What was to be gained from it?
Piltdown Man was a hoax. The current file is a best guess deduction made by someone which later turned out to be in error. So what? Doesn't make it a hoax.Sounds like you need to call it hoax because doing so somehow supports your notion the pyramids weren't tombs / funerary structures?
> > Nor should we ball up the wax where all
> > and subsequent work becomes suspect, or worse,
> > it's all wrong.
> Well, therein hangs the tail. Whenever some of us
> are told "there's a body of evidence", it usually
> boils down to context of this nature, context that
> is derived from presumption, extrapolation, and
> pure fabrication based on the build-up of a
> self-consistent narrative that's replete with
> other similar contextual conjectures.
Which is exactly what yourself and others are doing.
> The Tomb
> Hypothesis is a case in point. Where is there any
> physical evidence at all, not contextual
> conjecture, that support the notion that pyramids
> were originally designed to be tombs? Even the
> "from-mastaba-to-Step-Pyramid" argument is
> full of holes. As far as I can tell, there isn't a
> single iota of direct evidence that speaks to OK
> pyramids designed for a funerary purpose.
Not a single iota? There is much more evidence in favor of 'funerary' than there is in things like 'ancient alien existentialist nuclear poop machine'. Not that the latter is you take on it of course. :)
> It's all
> apparently based on circumstantial contextual
Like pretty much everything you conclude about it?
> > Anyone have a theory, no matter how inane? How
> > give it traction? Simple ... just find a way to
> > say all experts are either wrong, charlatans in
> > soup of bath water, or incompetent.
> > Seriously?
> Nice try, but that's not what's going on here.
> Rather, some of us are holding the line very
> firmly at what the direct physical evidence says.
You are deluding yourself to think you are 'holding the line'. What you're doing is holding onto your belief without considering evidence which contradicts said belief.
> We are asking whether the pyramids were DESIGNED
> to be tombs, not just whether they might have been
> USED as tombs at some point in their history. We
> are asking whether the is any DIRECT evidence of
> an original funerary function,
... I'll stop here. If you think there is nothing funerary about ancient Egypt - especially the Old Kingdom - I am very much done conversing with you. Such a claim is gargantuan in it's credulity. If that's what you think, there is seriously no point in discussing anything with you. There's no point in giving link after link, reference after reference, wasting my time on ludicrous claims.
Have a very nice and fuzzy day,
ps. If you think you 'win' something by an opponent walking away, well Philip, today I'll let you be the better man.