<HTML>On the previous thread, Frank Doernenburg wrote:
>
> The funny thing is: Sechemchet, a clearly unfinished
> pyramid is provided to show that pyramids never were tombs,
> and the mummy parts which really were found are explained
> away for the same reason...<p>
Absolutely not. There is much more evidence than that. The sealed but empty box in a sealed chamber raises the question as to whether the pyramids were actually designed to be used as tombs. The mummy parts found prove that at some point in the pyramid's history it WAS used as a tomb. However, because they were intrusive rather than original the question becomes, were the pyramids originally designed to be used as tombs? With that question in mind it helps if we look at the designs of the pyramids and see how the tomb hypothesis fits.
> If THIS is the way "alternative history" is produced...<p>
> FD
Can you suggest another way? Is honest scientific inquiry discouraged when it comes to Egyptology?
Chris</HTML>
