> 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?
I said it was a "pure fabrication"; you referred to my comment as implying it was a hoax. And I might very well agree it was indeed a "hoax" except that I think Reisner truly believed his own fabrication, so perhaps "hoax" is going a bit too far by today's standard.
> .Sounds like you need to call it hoax
> because doing so somehow supports your notion the
> pyramids weren't tombs / funerary structures?
What does Reisner and Heterpheres have to do with whether the pryamids were designed to be tombs? You seem to be the one who is searching for a connection that's not there. I'm only using Reisner as an example of how far off road things can go when they deviate from being evidence-based. Whether Reisner had or hadn't committed that fabrication doesn't change the fact that anyone who claims the pyramids were designed to be tombs must substantiate that claim with direct evidence and not just contrived contextual conjecture.
> > 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. :)
Why are you deflecting again to aliens...and nuclear poop?!
My point was about whether the OK pyramids were designed to be tombs.
And yes, not an iota of hard evidence supports that notion.
> 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.
"Evidence"? In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
What "evidence"? I've only seen one contrived contextual conjecture after the other.
> > 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.
And you are not reading the words I am typing. For the 101st time, I never said "there is nothing funerary about ancient Egypt - especially the Old Kingdom." The Old Kingdom was extremely funerary. But I have no reason to believe they built the Giza pyramids. And so I am contending that there is no hard evidence to support the traditional claim that G1 and the other cyclopean pyramids were originally designed to be tombs or have any other funerary function. Rather, it seems far more likely to me, based in the physical evidence, that the Giza pyramids were ancient even during the OK, that the OK adapted the pyramids, they invented the funerary context, and then assigned the pyramids a funerary role within that context.
> 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.
And if you continue to convince yourself that this is what I've been saying when my posts are very clearly NOT saying that, then I'll take that as your self-consistent ploy to avoid having to confront head-on the reality of what the physical evidence actually is saying to us. Avry, if anything has no point here, it's your repeated effort to continue this discussion without bellying up with hard evidence or acknowledging the physical evidence before us. Have you looked at the link I posted earlier regarding the "granite plugs"? I've presented a detailed argument against the security hypothesis using sound logic applied to the physical evidence. I urge you to take a look at it.
> ps. If you think you 'win' something by an
> opponent walking away, well Philip, today I'll let
> you be the better man.
I'm not surprised that you would attempt to re-characterize my simply focus on physical evidence as being some kind of twisted competition. It's the hallmark of traditional Egyptology.
If it makes you feel better, let's both quit in order to neutralize any inference of "winner"...
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?