> You are purposefully inserting your Egyptology
> rant into Steve's thread.
> I am trying my hardest to disagree with him
You can't understand this but i'm trying my hardest to help support him with LOGIC and EVIDENCE. Egyptology has ignored logic and evidence for so long they don't even know what it is. I can tell you what it isn't. The pavement is known to be flat and the basalt pad is under whatever structure once stood on the east side of the pyramid. It is a fact that this exists and it is not a fact that the structure mustta been the "Mortuary Temple of Khufu". The fact is that there was water collected on these surfaces and were fed to two points (at least one) on the adjacent cliff face. The fact is the pyramid was surrounded with a large, tall, wide "dam" that could have impounded huge amounts (50 acre feet) of water on these surfaces. The fact is these surfaces are reported by history and confirmed by observation to have existed BEFORE the pyramid. These are the facts. The fact is we don't know anything because Egyptology dismisses facts and won't even release infrared scans of the pyramid. The fact is even Peers can't see evidence that is never gathered. Logic dictates that we (people like Steve Clayton) are forced to work with almost no evidence to determine a reality that Egyptology won't seek and doesn't look for because it's outside of their interests.
What you're doing is reminding him we already know everything so looking for a water source or even considering that a water source existed is a waste of time. This is exactly the same thing as their saying we know the pyramids are tombs built with ramps by ignorant and highly superstitious people. We have all thew answers so all that's left is to educate the unwashed masses that there were no flying saucers, no funiculars, and nothing but superstition.
Why don't you tell him how they got the pavement flat and where all that water came from? Why don't you design a system that could harness ran water and whose ruins wouldn't be visible today. Why don't you tell him what the builders said about the winding watercourse? Why don't you tell him about "boat operators" and Canal Overseers" buried at Giza? Why don't you tell him about the massive holes in Egyptological "theory"? Why don't you tell him about the gaps in our knowledge and omniscience? Why you you tell him how you know for certain he is wrong?
Why don't you believe in "free association" when you are constantly losing the argument?