Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SC: > What is your explanation for the lack of
> Queens of
> > Khafre?
>
> AS: Khafre decided mastabas were sufficient for
> his queens.
>
> SC: You state this as though it is fact. What
> proof have you? Citation please?
Khafre's probable mastaba in Khufu's necropolis is the proof. When you understand Egyptian burial practices, it makes perfect sense.
>
> AS: This, probably because Khafre was not the heir
> apparent and their mastabas had already been
> started, with significant illustration and
> inscription work already completed by the time he
> took the throne.
>
> SC: 'Probably'? Are we speculating here, Anthony.
> What proof have you?
>
Khafre's probable mastaba in Khufu's necropolis is the proof. When you understand... oh wait, I already said that.
Same answer.
>
> SC: > What is your explanation for the
> > concavities of Khufu and Menkaure?
>
> AS: Structural artifact, probably from the method
> used to build the pyramids.
>
> SC: A very unique 'artifact' indeed then!
Not unique at all.
> Why
> don't we see them in the many other pyramid
> structures that are still standing?
Why haven't you looked for them? I have recently said that a good theorist searches for disproof, not proof. You should have done that hunting for yourself already.
> It is pretty
> much established, Anthony, that this feature is
> quite unique to these structures. There is the
> possibility that the Red Pyramid may also have
> such.
Bingo.
>
> SC: > What is your
> > explanation for the missing concavities of
> Khafre?
>
> AS: Khafre's workers remembered the problem and
> didn't make the same mistake.
>
> SC: Problem - what problem?
The "concavities" are a structural flaw. They were corrected by Khafre, but happened again in Menkaure's pyramid. There are reasons for this. You are free to discover them if you wish.
> And - it was okay to
> build them into Menkaure's pyramid, who came after
> Khafre? Sorry - not logical.
Perfectly logical, actually... if you understand why they are there.
> Despite the
> generations that may have passed to the building
> of Menkaure's structure, this 'problem' as you
> call it would have been remembered. So why do
> this for Menkaure?
Is your theory completely reliant upon these two pyramids have four "concavities" each?
What would it mean to your "theory" if this were not the actual case?
>
> SC: > Are you really convinced that the
> so-called
> > 'Queens' pyramids were originally intended
> as
> > such?
>
> AS: Yes. The evidence is virtually
> incontrovertible. Inscriptions may exaggerate, but
> they don't often lie.
>
> SC: Not according to these folks:
>
The fact that a queen's burial artifacts, as well as her used sarcophagus, was found in one of these pyramids is hardly disproof that they were queen's pyramids. In fact, Hetepheres is the absolute death of your ideas.
again.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.