Petrie and everyone else always critique themselves whenever they open their mouths. Everything you believe is put on display with your every utterance. How odd the Egyptians knew this but we have mostly forgotten.
From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement. The forking of the inner end is not cut in the rock, but in a large block of limestone.
Petrie said it. Egyptology ignores it.
Where were the Egyptologists when King Farouk said he was building his mansion right on top of the evidence? They claim they are there to protect the site but then they drill holes fill with concrete and stand by as the most important evidence is hauled away in trucks and only a "few" words hidden in an old book survive.
Why doesn't Egyptology "free associate" with facts and logic? Why are anomalies on the east side of the pyramid assigned religious meaning, altogether ignored, or have a house dropped on them?