Colette wrote:
..............................................

>Real scientists and astronomers do not look at a lot of this material because it is >classified as amateurs or nuts trying to make a name for themselves and writing their own >history......Real geologists, scientists, and so on, they do not endorse most of any of >this because it is in truth bogus.


I basically agree somewhat with everything you wrote
and am in strong agreement with much of it. This point
I agree with very little.

There are very few generalists in modern times and in the
harder sciences there tends to be even more specialization.
This specialization permeates all aspects of human effort
and study. Even in industry you'll see those who keep the
books, run the equipment, do maintenance, or keep the place
clean. No one knows what anyone else is doing and usually
don't even understand the process which makes the product ex-
cept in how it relates to their own function.

Geology, for instance, is no longer a single discipline where
the practitioners are mostly interchangeable. There are geo-
logists for oil, minerals, plate tectonics, geysers, and a-
bout any other thing you can thing of. Doctors have splint-
ered into more than fifty specialties and it's nearly a full
time job just keeping up in their own. This is great if you
have a known condition since you can find a doctor who an be
of service but if you don't, then it might take years to be di-
agnosed since it can be hard to see the forest for the trees.

Even mathematics has numerous specialties and advanced physics
resembles a branch of math.

There are almost no people who specialize in ancient technology
and the very few who do tend to go back to only about the early
1800's since there's so little known about earlier times. As
knowledge has grown and branched endlessly there has never been
an attempt to preserve the past. You can read books and gain a
lot of insight into second century BC iron production but you are
not going to be able to duplicate it in any real sense nor will
you be able to identify an historical blast furnace and trace its
output or input. There is little attempt to do this or to preserve
current conditions for the future because humans have little inter-
est in such things.

What this boils down to is that the opinions of most scientists
on the bigger questions related to Giza are probably no better
than yours or mine. If a question on schistosomiasis arose then
the opinion of an expert doctor on infectious diseases might be
extremely helpful but he can't tell you any more about how the py-
ramids were built or the health of the ancient Egyptians than any-
one else. He wouldn't know that, but that's the way things work.
Specialists are simply not equipped and mostly incompetent to judge
anything to be bogus that doesn't fall mostly or entirely within
their own field of expertise. Even then it's possible for the ex-
perts to mostly agree and still be wrong.

We're never going to solve the question by having it looked at by
a single discipline and egyptology is no exception. We'll never
solve the problem by excluding those who don't agree with the
styatus quo. We'll never solve the problem at all, perhaps, with-
out a lot more data.

So long as the powers that be exclude generalists and withhold da-
ta it's unlikely that this will be solved anytime soon.

...Unless I'm right, of course.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.