> Origyptian Wrote:
> > 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
> > notions.
> 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
In other words, still no evidence that they were constructed in the 3rd millennium BC.
> 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.
And so likewise, still no evidence they were designed to be tombs.
> 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.
I do see a growing doubt in both the tomb hypothesis as well as a 3rd millennium BC provenance as more recent reassessments are made of the veracity of conclusions drawn by early investigators (security mechanisms, the problematics of applying associative context to determine provenance), and also new investigations (Baalbek, Goblekli, Eastern Desert harbors, Peruvian Andes), not to mention that no additional evidence has surfaced since the publications you cited, which only further amplifies the tenuous nature of those old notions.
But regardless of whether you agree the body of evidence against those notions is growing or not, there remains insufficient evidence to characterize an OK provenance or tomb intent as being anything close to a "theory". At best they are speculative hypotheses based on obsolete standards of proof that merely depend on loosely associative context and not on direct physical evidence.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jan-17 04:45 by Origyptian.