drrayeye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I never forget that there are two kinds of bad
> theories: ones that explain too little; and ones
> that explain too much. At GHMB, the theories
> never explain too little.

Any "revolutionary theory" is normally going to be based on the study of a single anomaly or a specific group of anomalies. When the explanation for the anomaly is "out there" (paradigm changing) it's quite natural to explore why the explanation is not being accepted at face value. This leads to more and more speculation to explain unrelated anomalous observation. Eventually a simple hypothesis is prone to be applied in places it doesn't fit.

The terms I usually use is that as speculation is piled on speculation the confidence level (probability of being right) decreases. Somehow Egyptology has piled speculation onto speculation for a century and a half and are simply blind to all the anomalous data and logic that has been generated. "Program management" for building pyramids is obviously an example of "explaining too much". Very much too much.