Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>..
> ...According to the OP: "this [the stain]
> is undeniable proof that the Great Pyramid was not
> a tomb." By the same token would you not agree
> that the stain is not "proof" of whether or not it
> was a tomb? That this is "undeniable proof" of
> nothing other than stains seen in photographs of
> which we do not know what made them or when?

Yes, the stain is not proof it's not a tomb. But that doesn't change my impression that it's a stain. I still think it could very well be the hardened remains of an intermittent thin slurry comprised of limestone powder that mixed with rain and condensation as it trickled down that shaft into the KC over the millennia.

There are plenty of "one-off" photos from back then. Their uniqueness is not a reason to disregard them since many of them represent the only samples of pristine evidence we will ever have. We will never again see the Great Step's "V" or the trench in the DP floor, or the graffiti, or the hacked up floor at the QC niche, or the chisel marks through the vertical grooves in the Antechamber's south wall...