MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> A thread with an opening post that is totally
> biased in favour of the theory, note theory, that
> the pyramids were used as tombs for the king's in
> whose names they were supposedly built... I'd
> rather not, thank you.
>


I state the conclusion and then document why it is the logical conclusion to the argument. I invite you to conclude something different if you'd like... but you have to explain all the evidence we have collected over the last 2000 years, and not just dismiss it as inconvenient, or attempt to bury it with conspiracy theories.



>
> You write, 'Why mislead someone looking for honest
> answers????'
>
> There is nothing misleading in my post, Anthony.


There most certainly is. You were a participant in a discussion on the exact topic about which Hans asked, right here on this site, and yet you told him:

Quote

I seriously doubt that such a site or book exists.
If either does, one thing is certain: it almost certainly won't be by an Egyptologist

It would appear that it is not in Egyptologists interest to even consider the possibility that there oft repeated hypothesis "The pyramids were tombs" may, just may, be wrong.
The pros are for the most part purely circumstantial - the favourite being: it looks like a tomb therefore it was actually used as a tomb - and the cons are invariably ignored.

There's nothing circumstantial about what is presented in the post I made a few weeks ago. I posted solid facts about the context of the pyramids in the Old Kingdom. Not one single milligram of contradictory evidence has been presented. The "cons" don't exist, so of course they are ignored. You seem to have completely forgotten every word of it and so you tell Hans this rubbish about there being no such evidence, the "cons are invariably ignored" and that Egyptologists aren't open minded to the issue.

Your statements are simply and demonstrably false. Period.


> If you believe otherwise, then I ask that you do
> as Hans requests and give details of a website or
> book that deals in an unbiased manner with all of
> the arguements for and against.

I gave him one. If you can't admit that the facts lead to a conclusion that destroys your ethnocentric mathematical hypotheses, then that's your problem. Change your hypothesis. Don't ask us to change the facts.



> If you can provide details of a website or book
> that meets these requirements and is by an
> Egyptologist, then even better...


If being published on the subject in mainstream journals and speaking at real Egyptological conventions and universities does not qualify the author, then what does?



>
> BTW, do you honestly believe that politics does
> not come into this?


What the devil are you talking about? Now you're engaging in conspiracy theories. The last stand of the intellectually bankrupt argument.


> If it doesn't, then Egyptology is unique in the
> world of science in general.


That seals it. Conspiracy theories. The "feared Orthodoxy". The Galileo Argument.


> This is not a slight against anybody; it's an
> observation on normal human behaviour - where
> there's people there's politics.

And where there are true-believers in the disproven, there are conspiracy theories.





>
> Anyway, here endeth my minor and not entirely
> helpful contribution to this thread - well, for
> the time being, anyway...


Entirely unhelpful, except to showcase the dubious tactics of the Alternadoxy. For that, I thank you.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.