<HTML>
> Doesn't phase me as I don't have to live by the rules others
> set (nor do you).
There are protocols of method by which historical investigation is done. See "Three Principles" here in the articles.
> Are the pyramid texts hard evidence?
Yes, but their interpretation is highly contentious and they date to millennia after the pyramids. You don't see any problem with that?
>
> So, hard science of astronomy (Van Flandern) requires
> interpretation? What doesn't?
The astronomical data might be self-evident (I'm not an astronomer, so I don't know) but the link to AE sure as heck isn't.
> I'm sure Tompkins/Steccini is just impressing on a structure
> numbers that ANY structure could be forced to encode.
Pretty much. In the 1950s mathematician Martin Gardner "discovered" the property of 55-ness in the Washington monument in DC. It was totally meaningless, of course, but he used it as a solid example of how simple and well proportioned monuments can be manipulated mathematically once you have enough proportions and variables, the patience, and the arithmatical skill. Doesn't say anything, necessarily, about the intentions of the builders.
> How is reading the Pyramid texts as well as all the more
> notable literature of Egypt not a real staple of archeology?
Archaeology deals with the physical remains of the past, not the written evidence (which is up to philologists and epigraphers to work on).
>
> I beg to differ. In the long run, only one of us will be
> proven correct.
That's your prerogative, but you haven't answered my objection: your list of "evidence" is no evidence, just speculation dressed up as "evidence."
Where are the houses, the burials, the hatpins of the LC'ers?
Garrett</HTML>
