As far as I can tell, the main reason somepeople are proposing that "someone else" may have built [the great pyramids] is  that there seems to be a distinct possibility that it [the Great Pyramid] wasn't built in the 3rd millennium BC at all, and that's largely because there's no hard evidence that it was, and in fact there are several compelling reasons to suggest that it wasn't.
> What are those "several compelling reasons",
> specifically evidence, that the great pyramids
> (and by extension, the other AE megalithic
> monuments, stoneware, and statuary) were built
> before the 3rd millennium BC? I would expand this
> time for sake of argument to prior to the Naqada
> period which began c. 4,000BC as before this time
> no evidence of any population has yet been found
> sufficient enough to do the work regardless of
> their abilities. Please give responses in list
> And so that we do not get bogged down by the same
> tired cop-out reply "it is not the responsibility
> of those who hold this belief to prove it was
> built before this time but rather only incumbent
> on those to prove it was built after the 3rd
> millenium", let's assume the AE did not build
> the pyramids. Let's assume the AE just
> walked in off the desert, from somewhere c.
> 4,000BC, and found all of this stuff: all the
> pyramids, all the granite and megalithic temples
> from one end of the Nile to the other, all the
> fantastic stone vases and statues all just sitting
> there. On, and on, and on.
> What is the evidence, or "several compelling
> reasons" as it were, that any of these objects or
> construction predated 4,000BC?
> Let this be our guide:
Those of us working on an alternative history of humanity need to hold ourselves to standards of evidence AT LEAST AS HIGH as is demanded of mainstream scholars if we are ever to get history rewritten. Graham Hancock.
> ADDED: Please do not derail the conversation
> with unrelated self absorbed topics. This is a
> very simple thread. I am asking for a list of
> evidence that shows the megalithic monuments and
> stone artifacts were built prior to 4,000BC which
> already makes the assumption they were not made by
> the AE therefore we do not need to argue about
> what they could or could not do or what tools they
> had or not. This evidence does not need to be of
> the "smoking gun" variety, just credible evidence,
> circumstantial or otherwise, of a nature that is
> normally used to traditionally date such cultures
> and artifacts which some of us might otherwise
> refer to as actual "higher standards of
Wishful thinking. It may not be good evidence and it may not be evidence at all, but it’s bound to be the best evidence as there is nothing else to slot into that category.
It works in a particular way. An imaginary civilisation, being imaginary, may be credited with whatever abilities, techniques and knowledge it suits the imaginer to grant it. There is no evidential constraint as there is no evidence.
That our LC advocates see no problem in this nullity of evidence just goes to show how unlike archaeologists they are in their assumptions and thought process. As I’ve mentioned before, ancient aliens has the advantage here: as a theory it has a built-in explanation of the evidence being absent.