seasmith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Merrell Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > seasmith Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > R. Pearse routinely equates the translated
> term
> > "
> > > akhet- khufu" as the Great Pyramid.
> > >
> > > How do we know for sure it is specifically
> the
> > > pyramid, and not the Giza Plateau, which Is
> an
> > > actual 'horizon' ?
> >
> >
> [url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,11
>
> > 33868,1133982#msg-1133982]This post[/url] (and
> the
> > quoted material) might help to answer your
> > question.
>
> ´´´
>
> Thank you Merrell, I've been reading back through
> many of these related posts for couple weeks now
> (just a gloss on years of postings, true ), and
> like you I've only been able to find
> circumstantial evidence thus far.
> Keep looking i guess ...


IOWs the more one looks the more circumstantial evidence on finds

at what point does one have enough circumstantial evidence to justify taking the step from possible/plausible, to probable?

I cede that this argument, for some, goes both ways.

Putting it another way.

At what point does such a flood of circumstantial evidence require the critic to provide evidence for a viable alternate explanation?

Warwick