> Egyptian art has lots of weird things in it and if you play the
> game of “it looks like” you can come up with lots of nonsense.
> It’s the time-honoured primary fallacy of ancient-astronautism.
Egyptologists say it looks like this or that and it's carved in stone but someonwe else says it looks like some other object and that is a logical non sequitur.
Egyptologists support their contentions by reference to "cultural context" which is unknown as to the origin of most of these objects. Indeed, it comes down to the same old assumptions about superstitiuous people who laccked science. Obviously if the assumption is the people were superstitious and the origin of these "symbols" is "known" to be in superstition then they most certainly can't be light bulbs or have any scientific meaning.
It's all circular reasoning that stops and starts at the same place. If they don't know what a djed is or how the natural phenomenon of the annual cycle means then simple concepts like serpents and everything else here will escape them.
Why is it so improbable that one reasonable person's guess isn't as good as the guesses of Egyptology?