> Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle
> from philosophy. Suppose there exist two
> explanations for an occurrence. In this case the
> one that requires the smallest number of
> assumptions is usually correct. Another way of
> saying it is that the more assumptions you have to
> make, the more unlikely an explanation.
Egyptologists pick and choose what evidence to consider before they apply occams razor. It doesn't work this way.
The builders said that the water for the winding water course originated at the eye of horus in the midst of the field. They said that natron makes "osiris" stand and toss water violently at Giza. There are geyser deposits in the walls of the horizontal passage. It is quite apparent they used water at 81' 3" to lift stones straight up the sides of five step pyramids. There are volcanoes, warm springs, CO2, and a transform plate boundary in the area. There is very extensive evidence for funiculars operating on the cliff face and water flow away from a water catchment device surrounding the great pyramids.
Now when you apply occams razor geysers isn't nearly so absurd. Obviously it's possible there are other explanations for all the evidence and obviously no amount of evidence or even proof will make "geysers" common or typical. I believe there were geysers simply because this is the simplest explanation for how our history was forgotten, the cultural context, and the physical evidence. It is as consistent with logic as funiculars are consistent with logic, and as I stated, there is extensive evidence for the use of linear funiculars on the cliff face.