> 1. Where is the evidence that those megalithic
> pyramids were constructed in the 3rd
> millennium BC?, and,
> 2. Where is the evidence that those megalithic
> pyramids were designed to be tombs?
> And in fact, there is a growing
> volume of evidence that contradicts those 2
Regarding the first "notion", in the thread Evidence Why the Pyramids Were Built Before the Dynastic Period-Give It Your Best Shot you nor anyone else could provide even one piece of evidence to support the claim the pyramids were built prior to the 3rd millennium yet here you are once again making the claim this "volume of nothingness" is somehow "growing". That thread was started in July 2016 and no one could offer any evidence so what exactly has changed? To ask again, 6 months later, can you provide a list of "growing evidence" you believe validates the claim the pyramids were built prior to the 3rd millennium?
Regarding the 2nd notion (which equally applies to the first), and please keep in mind I am on record here as much as anyone in support of the "notion" they were not built at tombs to inter a body, what exactly is the "volume of evidence" you think is "growing" to support this? Many alternative writers have espoused the evidence against the tomb theory in the last 40+yrs alone, which apparently few here have ever read which is odd considering its an alternative history forum, yet to you somehow you think this evidence has "grown" in the last 40+yrs? Or 2,000+yrs as the case may be as Herodotus didn't think the Giza pyramids ever contained actual burials either.
Explain how exactly it has "grown", let alone "growing", and what evidence do you think this might be that wasn't touched on by say, for example, by William R Fix, Pyramid Odyssey 1977 chapter 7 "The Tomb Theory"? Or say our very own Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods 1995 chapter 35 "Tombs and Tombs Only?". Peter Tompkins? John Anthony West? Bueller...? What is puzzling to me about some of you is that not only is mainstream literature on these subjects an anathema to you, but alternative writers as well. This "volume of evidence" may seem to be "growing" to you only because of your own ignorance, but in reality this is not the case. But please, explain how this evidence is "growing" and what the evidence actually is.