> Oh, well, clearly, the entire civilisation of
> ancient Egypt and the entire profession of
> Egyptology should issue a grovelling apology
> to you for ancient papyri being “tattered” and
> ancient inscriptions being preserved by chance and
> climate, contra your a priori allegation
> that “they have no business being that legible
> after all that time”.
The problem here is simple and it's not really Egyptology's fault and it certainly isn't Origyptian's fault.
The problem is that there is a virtual vacuum of evidence and every single time some little shred of evidence or a simple fact becomes known that Egyptologists want to use it to support the entire unevidenced paradigm. We found out that Merrer hauled stones to Giza in the 27th year of Khufu's reign and suddenly this scrap of data is construed as proof that the great pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by superstitious and changeless bumpkins in 2450 BC. It is no such thing as Origyptian et al are continually trying to point out. It is just one more fact that better supports some hypotheses than others. If they really built it by hauling stones across the river (AS WAS ALREADY APPARENT) then it reduces the possibility that aliens built it. But this hardly proves the pyramid was a tomb or that Khufu reigned only 27 years. It is not evidence the tura went on last and it's not evidence that they were superstitious or used primitive means to lift stones. It supports the orthdox timeline but it doesn't prove it because they could have been merely repairing these structures.
The real problem is two-fold; Egyptologists can't argue outside their basic assumptions and they refuse to gather evidence that would show positively how these were built. Of course they are failing to gather much more evidence than merely this but I personally believe that other paths are a dead end. They won't "measure", "test", and "examine" the physical properties of the great pyramids in order to determine their nature. Since they won't perform this science we can't make the basic determinations we need to support or deny Egyptological assumptions. Indeed, they won't even release or consider data any longer unless it supports those assumptions.
We are locked into the status quo where new data can only support current beliefs.
How can Origyptian be blamed? You can say he won't accept the obvious and I see your point but once you remove all the assumptions almost nothing at all is truly obvious. The data are all open to interpretation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Sep-16 20:49 by cladking.