Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We're still left with the "foeign" sand
> around
> > the queen's chamber,
>
>
> For which you have not provided a valid citation.
> Repeating the assertion will not make it true.

I don't remember you having a problem with this previously.


> > water erosion on the Sphinx
> > enclosure,
>
> It sits at the bottom of a big flat plain which is
> subjected to occasional torrential floods. The
> stone is weakened by multiple factors, including
> salt exfoliation. It would be a miracle if it
> didn't show "water erosion".


No it doesn't. I could find a topo map for easily enogh;

[oi.uchicago.edu]

click on the second link down. Very little land drains through here.

> > and ancients reports of water around
> > the pyramids.
>
> Please provide a documented source for this
> assertion.

I confess you might have me here. I've seen dozens of such claims but haven't followed any of them.


> > There is also a veritable mountain
> > of circumstantial evidence.
>
> There's an equally large amount of "circumstantial
> evidence" that the lunar landings were faked.
> Same quality of evidence, too...


No. There's no good evidence the lunar landings were faked. There is an excellent photo of the lunar landing site with no lander in it but this was surely faked. There would be more than this single piece of evidence if there were no landing.

> > There's even one pyramid with a flooded
> substruc-
> > ture which they've been trying to pump out
> for at
> > least a year. There's another being explored
> by
> > scuba divers.

I don't remember but it's ongoing so google should find it easily enough.

> >
> > While the Nile would seem to be unable to
> reach
> > these levels now or in the past even under
> extreme
> >
>
>
> Aswan Dam. This has been explained to you in the
> past, but you continue to ignore it.

You're twisting my words here.

> > conditions it may have come close. More
> import-
> > antly there was apparently an E-W river just
> > north
> > that was much higher and the lifting
> necessary
> > was within human ability.
>
> Prove it.

Tough job. It can be seen on the satellite picture and less so on the topo maps. The geologists do speak of a major E/W river across north Africa but I have not seen a proposed route for it. At the head of this apparent river is the largest construction project on the planet today; Libya's Man Made River Project which is extracting water from aquafers and pumping it to the coastal cities. There is no river draining the northern half of the Sahara which gets 5" of rainfall per year. At the time the pyramids were built rainfall was far higher.

> > I wouldn't be so quick to dimmiss "yeast gas"
> as
> > the motive force for lifting this water.
> Once
> > the
> > "’I [];.t-wt.t" brings the water to the
> surface
> > (or higher) it is available for use in
> filling
> > counterweights or a series of locks which
> may
> > have
> > taken half as long to build as the pyramid
> itself.
> >
>
>
> None of which is based on actual evidence from the
> culture.

I believe it is. If you read the pyramid texts many seem to make a lot more sense when seen in this light.

> > Water was more available in 2600BC than it
> is
> > now.
>
> Well, there's your first correct point.
> Congratulations!

citation please.

> > And even more so not long before that.
> Obviously
> >
> > they weren't waiting for rain to fill
> > counterweights
> > but more water does translate to a higher
> water
> > table at the very least.
>
>

> The rain in Egypt proper was not a real factor in
> the flooding of the Nile.


Yes. This is what I said.


> I'm quitting here. You've got no foundation, no
> evidence, and your ideas of what constitute
> evidence are well below standard. There's no
> point in continuing this, as it has all been
> pointed out to you before, but you just come back
> a month later restating it all again.


I have to disagree. I believe we're looking at very much the same evidence and seeing two different things. Obviously, it would be a sort of fluke if I'm right but let me ask this? Is there really a certainty that if this were the case that someone would have seen it with so little evidence? Much of this is disjointed and has no obvious connection. Not only is it disjointed but tools that weren't available even ten years ago would be necessary in the solution. Plus it's been driven by some very knowledgeable skeptics.

When before was there a chance for all these things to come together? Imagine if Manetho, Petrie, Vyse, Mamun, Budge, Newton and several other more modern scholars could sit down and compare notes. To some extent this is the effect of google. Imagine if Horapollo could google the pyramid texts. He'd probably have cracked the language.

I've barely even touched on the most circumstantial evidence simply because such things get shot down pretty quick around here.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that I believe this is the answer. I'm just saying that there is enough evidence that it deserves attention.







____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.