Merrell wrote:


> Egyptologists don't take suggestions of forgery in the Great
> Pyramid seriously, because there is no serious evidence
> supporting the contention.

Then thank goodness I am not an Egyptologist. You see, I was brought up to question everything, to *seek* evidence and to gracefully accept the facts as rigorously proven (as far as reasonably possible) by that evidence.

Your position is not only bereft of empiricism, it is virtually anti-scientific and that sort of closed thinking - that utterly baseless authoritativeness, that attitude of "we know what we know so we don't need to examine anything further" simply baffles me. I think Cladking defined it as the "head in the sand" approach, but I think it's actually worse than that - you are like a voice from the Dark Ages. You know with certainty that the world is flat, therefore you won't be wasting any "scarce resources" in exploring beyond the horizon. Well, the loss is yours I'm afraid.