Contemporary Great Pyramid Document

[Skiessa]

Hi skiessa -

I find it sad that no translation of the Red Sea document is easily available on line.

You have to remember that geologists working at Giza found a quarry immediately in front of the Great Pyramid,
and that no less a "skeptic" than Christopher Dunne himself discovered a couple of rock saw pits in the same area.
(You may want to check out his videos on Youtube.)

Besides the workmen's quarters at Giza,
there was also an earlier pyramid which collapsed during its construction.
In my view, excavations there through that collapse debris
are likely to reveal exact details of the ancient Egyptian's methods of pyramid construction.

Just because we do not know definitively how and why they did i right now,
obtaining those answers is mainly a question of money.
With so may ruins, and so little money,
questions as to the pyramids are likely to be definitively answered only some time later on.

In the meantime, there are a lot of people who will try to use those "mysteries"
to sell you a lot of shit.

I have to quote my earlier post on this one: the world would have so much fewer ancient alien stories if the same burden of proof would apply to archaeology which applies to every other field of science. the bigger the suggestion, the bigger the burden of proof. i'm still looking for the distinction between shit and a mainstream view which is widely accepted without any physical evidence, but which one still cannot criticize or question without being completely ridiculed. just imagine if the physics would treat some hypothesis this way: saying that it shall remain the default until we find the evidence that supports it. in such case we would be having this argument with swords lol.

[Simon21]

I have to quote my earlier post on this one: the world would have so much fewer ancient alien stories if the same burden of proof would apply to archaeology which applies to every other field of science. the bigger the suggestion, the bigger the burden of proof. i'm still looking for the distinction between shit and a mainstream view which is widely accepted , but which one still cannot criticize or question without being completely ridiculed. just imagine if the physics would treat some hypothesis this way: saying that it shall remain the default until we find the evidence that supports it. in such case we would be having this argument with swords lol.

As usual you overstate your case and invite ridicule. As anyone in science could tell you there are plenty of areas where we do not have hard physical evidence to support a theory or an idea. Finding it is what drives research forward. Depending on what you mean by "physical evidence" which seems to be a mystery - presumably you do not beleive in early hominids because you have not met one and the only "physical evidence" are a few battered bones capable of wild interpretations.

If the existence of the pyramids is not physical evidence of their construction then what can one say to such an intellect?

However what lies at the heart of your problem however is probably a deep racism which sadly prevails in much of the US and increasingly Europe. One can't openly despise jews or blacks any more but the people of the Middle East are, it seems, fair game.

[Skiessa]

I have to quote my earlier post on this one: the world would have so much fewer ancient alien stories if the same burden of proof would apply to archaeology which applies to every other field of science. the bigger the suggestion, the bigger the burden of proof. i'm still looking for the distinction between shit and a mainstream view which is widely accepted , but which one still cannot criticize or question without being completely ridiculed. just imagine if the physics would treat some hypothesis this way: saying that it shall remain the default until we find the evidence that supports it. in such case we would be having this argument with swords lol.

As usual you overstate your case and invite ridicule. As anyone in science could tell you there are plenty of areas where we do not have hard physical evidence to support a theory or an idea. Finding it is what drives research forward. Depending on what you mean by "physical evidence" which seems to be a mystery - presumably you do not beleive in early hominids because you have not met one and the only "physical evidence" are a few battered bones capable of wild interpretations.

If the existence of the pyramids is not physical evidence of their construction then what can one say to such an intellect?

However what lies at the heart of your problem however is probably a deep racism which sadly prevails in much of the US and increasingly Europe. One can't openly despise jews or blacks any more but the people of the Middle East are, it seems, fair game.

"there are plenty of areas in science..." I could mention few cases from the other fields of science where the burden of proof has been ignored, but mostly the science treats the unproven ideas as hypotheses at best - the individual scientists are commonly the ones which advertise their pet theories in shinier light than they really deserve. in most cases however it's the popularization of the science and the junk media which misquotes the scientific research in the way as if it would have been claiming something to be fact, whereas it only claims to have found something plausible.

...and even if the whole science would have been built on such punch first, ask later-ideology, it wouldn't make it any more logical, or scientific. in order to connect the dots we don't draw on a blank paper and then wait the dots to appear.

"what you mean by "physical evidence" which seems to be a mystery" by physical i mean something that you can touch, whether it to be a piece of equipment or a papyri which describes the construction process in detail and which answers to the known problems of the construction process of this particular pyramid. because of the size and complexity of the great pyramid, the burden of proof far exceeds some papyri from mr. khufu which says "yep, it's mine.".

"If the existence of the pyramids is not physical evidence of their construction then what can one say to such an intellect?" i think we all agree that the pyramids were constructed, lol. the open question for me is that who constructed them and when.

"but the people of the Middle East are, it seems, fair game." funny thing though, the facial features of the sphinx are sometimes thought to be more african than mid-east. but anyways I do believe in the water erosion hypothesis, and definetly don't think that mr. khafre did more than re-carved the head of the meow-meow at the best. here I am again, taking more stuff away from the brown skinned people. I could draw my cartouche on all of this white quilt. please call me racist more, i draw power from the liberal rhetorics hysteria.

[Simon21]

"there are plenty of areas in science..." I could mention few cases from the other fields of science where the burden of proof has been ignored, but mostly the science treats the unproven ideas as hypotheses at best -

Really what is meant by "burden of proof. And "ignored" what as a deliberate act? Please do cite such examples.

the individual scientists are commonly the ones which advertise their pet theories in shinier light than they really deserve. in most cases however it's the popularization of the science and the junk media which misquotes the scientific research in the way as if it would have been claiming something to be fact, whereas it only claims to have found something plausible.

Sorry this seems to be paranoia. I wouldn't call the Lancet, junk media (whatever that means) or the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition to name but two prominent scientific journals.

...and even if the whole science would have been built on such punch first, ask later-ideology, it wouldn't make it any more logical, or scientific. in order to connect the dots we don't draw on a blank paper and then wait the dots to appear.

Your v

You think the "american journal of advanced agricultural research" "Antiquity", "Proceedings of the Royal Society" etc are run along ideological lines. Please idenify the ideology - is it political? religious?

funny thing though, the facial features of the sphinx are sometimes thought to be more african than mid-east.

You have the advantage. My Atlas shows Egypt as an African country - what does your show? And who "sometimes" thinks thius. Names please.

I do believe in the water erosion hypothesis, and definetly don't think that mr. khafre did more than re-carved the head of the meow-meow at the best. here I am again, taking more stuff away from the brown skinned people. I could draw my cartouche on all of this white quilt. please call me racist more, i draw power from the liberal rhetorics hysteria.

Your beliefs are the problem here aren't they? And let's be clear you see racsim as a good thing? Is that not ideological?

[circumspice]

Hi skiessa -

I find it sad that no translation of the Red Sea document is easily available on line.

You have to remember that geologists working at Giza found a quarry immediately in front of the Great Pyramid,
and that no less a "skeptic" than Christopher Dunne himself discovered a couple of rock saw pits in the same area.
(You may want to check out his videos on Youtube.)

Besides the workmen's quarters at Giza,
there was also an earlier pyramid which collapsed during its construction.
In my view, excavations there through that collapse debris
are likely to reveal exact details of the ancient Egyptian's methods of pyramid construction.

Just because we do not know definitively how and why they did i right now,
obtaining those answers is mainly a question of money.
With so may ruins, and so little money,
questions as to the pyramids are likely to be definitively answered only some time later on.

In the meantime, there are a lot of people who will try to use those "mysteries"
to sell you a lot of shit.

@E.P.:

The translation of the 'Red Sea Document' is available online. Trying paying some attention to the 'discussion' at hand. A link was posted in this thread. Now you need not cry & bemoan fate for such an injustice... It's a word-for-word literal translation & it's boring as shit. It's the daily journal of a mid level official who records his activities twice daily. Merer records picking up limestone blocks at a quarry, then delivering them to the worksite via boat. He records who he reported to at the worksite. (Khufu's half brother) He records whether or not he spent the night in a location. (quarry or worksite... good record keeping for per diem reimbursement?) No elegant prose, no step by step explanation for how the pyramids were built... And why would he provide such info? His job was to transport the limestone building blocks or perhaps the limestone casing blocks, it's not clear which. The only reason his journal has survived to this time is because it was abandoned at the Red Sea port when Khufu died & operations were shut down. That port was subsequently abandoned.

Even if we found all the original blueprints for the Step Pyramid, personally signed by Imhotep, along with the blueprints & plans for every subsequent pyramid, it would not matter to Skiessa. He would claim that it was all forgeries made by 'Mainstream Archaeology' to forward their agenda or keep their status quo. He is not truly interested in learning how ancient Egyptians build the pyramids. He seeks to prove that they did not build the pyramids. He's too stupid to understand that you can't prove a negative without evidence.

At least try to keep up with the discussion.

[Skiessa]

"there are plenty of areas in science..." I could mention few cases from the other fields of science where the burden of proof has been ignored, but mostly the science treats the unproven ideas as hypotheses at best -

Really what is meant by "burden of proof. And "ignored" what as a deliberate act? Please do cite such examples.

the individual scientists are commonly the ones which advertise their pet theories in shinier light than they really deserve. in most cases however it's the popularization of the science and the junk media which misquotes the scientific research in the way as if it would have been claiming something to be fact, whereas it only claims to have found something plausible.

Sorry this seems to be paranoia. I wouldn't call the Lancet, junk media (whatever that means) or the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition to name but two prominent scientific journals.

...and even if the whole science would have been built on such punch first, ask later-ideology, it wouldn't make it any more logical, or scientific. in order to connect the dots we don't draw on a blank paper and then wait the dots to appear.

Your v

You think the "american journal of advanced agricultural research" "Antiquity", "Proceedings of the Royal Society" etc are run along ideological lines. Please idenify the ideology - is it political? religious?

funny thing though, the facial features of the sphinx are sometimes thought to be more african than mid-east.

You have the advantage. My Atlas shows Egypt as an African country - what does your show? And who "sometimes" thinks thius. Names please.

I do believe in the water erosion hypothesis, and definetly don't think that mr. khafre did more than re-carved the head of the meow-meow at the best. here I am again, taking more stuff away from the brown skinned people. I could draw my cartouche on all of this white quilt. please call me racist more, i draw power from the liberal rhetorics hysteria.

Your beliefs are the problem here aren't they? And let's be clear you see racsim as a good thing? Is that not ideological?

"Really what is meant by "burden of proof. And "ignored" what as a deliberate act? Please do cite such examples." in argumentation, burden of proof means that the one who proposes a claim is obligated to provide the evidence for it.

two examples could be the assumption of the consciousness being produced by the brain, and the whole assumption of everything being reduced to matter and laws of physics in general. we don't know what the matter is and therefore cannot define its relation to the universe, and we don't know what the universe is so we cannot define its relation to the reality (everything that exists) and the existence itself.

I don't follow the magazines you mentioned, so i don't know how they publish the science. do they commonly claim unproven assumptions to be the defaults?

"My Atlas shows Egypt as an African country - what does your show?" so fucking clever. by african i mean black, i think you got that. you pulled the skin color of the egyptians here. the most remarkable persons i know to have heard mentioning this are John Anthony West, Graham Hancock and Robert Schoch.

"Your beliefs are the problem here aren't they?" clearly, although it's certainly not a bad thing, taking into account the level of my opposing side's level of argumentation. "And let's be clear you see racsim as a good thing?" why should I care about you calling me a racist? Racism has nothing to do with this discussion, it's just sad if you have to pull the racism card on a discussion which questions the human capabilities in general.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi skiessa -

Now that I think about it,the sites of the workers' quarters at the other pyramids have not even been located yet.
As digging any of these up is going to require large stacks of cash,
it is likely to be some years before we;ll have definitive answers to many of your questions.
In the meantime, just watch out for those who will try to sell you shit.

[Simon21]

"Really what is meant by "burden of proof. And "ignored" what as a deliberate act? Please do cite such examples." in argumentation, burden of proof means that the one who proposes a claim is obligated to provide the evidence for it."

That is the conventional meaning - but to you it seems to mean the existence of something physical. Ypuir problem may be a limited understanding of what proof means. You are not the locus of the world. The fact you refuse to beleive something for personal reasons does not mean it has been proven. One sees this in the criminal justice system all the time.

two examples could be the assumption of the consciousness being produced by the brain, and the whole assumption of everything being reduced to matter and laws of physics in general. we don't know what the matter is and therefore cannot define its relation to the universe, and we don't know what the universe is so we cannot define its relation to the reality (everything that exists) and the existence itself.

This is incomprehensible. Who assumes everything is "reduced to matter" (and what doies this mean anyway)?

Are we to assume you do not beleive consciousness is produced by the brain? Where do you think it comes from? You agree it exists?

I don't follow the magazines you mentioned, so i don't know how they publish the science. do they commonly claim unproven assumptions to be the defaults?

You have never heard of the Lancet? And you speak of the Science media? So where do you get you statements on the GSC (Great Scientific Conspiracy) from?

Please tell me what is a "proven assumption" If an assumption is proved surely it is not an assumption?

"My Atlas shows Egypt as an African country - what does your show?" so fucking clever. by african i mean black, i think you got that. you pulled the skin color of the egyptians here. the most remarkable persons i know to have heard mentioning this are John Anthony West, Graham Hancock and Robert Schoch.

No actually quite a lot of Africans are not black. Good old Johnny, Gra Gra and Bob. Are these your heroes? Didn't one beleive in little green men from outer space and pyramids in Bosnia? Oh dear

"Your beliefs are the problem here aren't they?" clearly, although it's certainly not a bad thing, taking into account the level of my opposing side's level of argumentation.

Is that really true? Reading the posts.

"And let's be clear you see racsim as a good thing?" why should I care about you calling me a racist? Racism has nothing to do with this discussion, it's just sad if you have to pull the racism card on a discussion which questions the human capabilities in general.
Skiessa

Which doesn't answer the question does it. Why should you care? The same way you presumably would care if someone called you a criminal. And may I remind you you are the one who talks about "brown skins" and apparently was unaware (seemingly). that Egypt is in Africa.

[Skiessa]

Hi skiessa -

Now that I think about it,the sites of the workers' quarters at the other pyramids have not even been located yet.
As digging any of these up is going to require large stacks of cash,
it is likely to be some years before we;ll have definitive answers to many of your questions.
In the meantime, just watch out for those who will try to sell you shit.

Don't worry, i don't buy shit.

The questions themselves are the things that matter - understanding the questions is often more than desperately trying to answer to them.

[Tiompan]

Don't worry, i don't buy shit.

[/quote]
Judging by your judgement about the geometry , accuracy of alignment , misunderstanding about RC dating , dating of monuments in general ,
uncritical acceptance of "magic " numbers ,and the possibility that AE encoded a value of axial precession in an error , then you most certainly do believe in the shit , if not actually paying for it .
This is compounded by a typical alt overview of archaeology / egyptology in general , failure to provide sources and comments like "what really shook me is that when i counted of how many times the 3 60th of a degree would fit in a full circle, i got 7200 " . Guaranteed you reading lists are full of alt /fringe crap .

[Skiessa]

"Really what is meant by "burden of proof. And "ignored" what as a deliberate act? Please do cite such examples." in argumentation, burden of proof means that the one who proposes a claim is obligated to provide the evidence for it."

That is the conventional meaning - but to you it seems to mean the existence of something physical. Ypuir problem may be a limited understanding of what proof means. You are not the locus of the world. The fact you refuse to beleive something for personal reasons does not mean it has been proven. One sees this in the criminal justice system all the time.

two examples could be the assumption of the consciousness being produced by the brain, and the whole assumption of everything being reduced to matter and laws of physics in general. we don't know what the matter is and therefore cannot define its relation to the universe, and we don't know what the universe is so we cannot define its relation to the reality (everything that exists) and the existence itself.

This is incomprehensible. Who assumes everything is "reduced to matter" (and what doies this mean anyway)?

Are we to assume you do not beleive consciousness is produced by the brain? Where do you think it comes from? You agree it exists?

I don't follow the magazines you mentioned, so i don't know how they publish the science. do they commonly claim unproven assumptions to be the defaults?

You have never heard of the Lancet? And you speak of the Science media? So where do you get you statements on the GSC (Great Scientific Conspiracy) from?

Please tell me what is a "proven assumption" If an assumption is proved surely it is not an assumption?

"My Atlas shows Egypt as an African country - what does your show?" so fucking clever. by african i mean black, i think you got that. you pulled the skin color of the egyptians here. the most remarkable persons i know to have heard mentioning this are John Anthony West, Graham Hancock and Robert Schoch.

No actually quite a lot of Africans are not black. Good old Johnny, Gra Gra and Bob. Are these your heroes? Didn't one beleive in little green men from outer space and pyramids in Bosnia? Oh dear

"Your beliefs are the problem here aren't they?" clearly, although it's certainly not a bad thing, taking into account the level of my opposing side's level of argumentation.

Is that really true? Reading the posts.

"And let's be clear you see racsim as a good thing?" why should I care about you calling me a racist? Racism has nothing to do with this discussion, it's just sad if you have to pull the racism card on a discussion which questions the human capabilities in general.
Skiessa

Which doesn't answer the question does it. Why should you care? The same way you presumably would care if someone called you a criminal. And may I remind you you are the one who talks about "brown skins" and apparently was unaware (seemingly). that Egypt is in Africa.

"That is the conventional meaning - but to you it seems to mean the existence of something physical. Ypuir problem may be a limited understanding of what proof means." you seem to be the one who has big problems on evaluating the evidence given in relation to the initial claim. and yes, the physical form of the evidence is a requirement if you want to prove something, rather than just hypothesizing. Hypotheses at their best are not scientific theories, and are not evidence for anything.

"This is incomprehensible. Who assumes everything is "reduced to matter" (and what doies this mean anyway)? " ...reduced to matter, dimensions and laws of physics, meaning that they are the essence of the reality (everything that exists), and so that everything existent emerges from them. This seems to be the presumption of practically every physicist who gives public speechs.

"Where do you think it comes from? You agree it exists?" My previous comment didn't imply so - it simply stated that I acknowledge the question to be open. But personally I do believe it to be from somewhere beyond here. and ofcourse it exists, I have my personal conscious experience to prove it to myself.

"You have never heard of the Lancet? And you speak of the Science media? So where do you get you statements on the GSC (Great Scientific Conspiracy) from?" i've heard from those magazines, but I haven't ever read them. Can you clarify what statements you are referring to? I haven't really looked into such conspiracy.

"Please tell me what is a "proven assumption" If an assumption is proved surely it is not an assumption?" by proven assumption i mean a presumption which lies on a strong evidential basis.

Which doesn't answer the question does it. Why should you care? The same way you presumably would care if someone called you a criminal. And may I remind you you are the one who talks about "brown skins" and apparently was unaware (seemingly). that Egypt is in Africa.[/quote]

Can't I just simply tell one to fuck off if i'm called a criminal? "..."that egypt is in africa" as I said, fucktard, I used the term "africans" on this context to refer to african black people simply because you for some weird reason started to talk about despising mid-easterns is okay, giving me the image that you refer to egyptian's brown skin instead of black.

[Simon21]

Don't worry, i don't buy shit.

But you beleive in foul language, hopefully not in front of your children.

, the physical form of the evidence is a requirement if you want to prove something, rather than just hypothesizing. Hypotheses at their best are not scientific theories, and are not evidence for anything.

So you do not beleive in time? or black hoies? etc?

And I am afraid you do not understand English usuage. When Scientists make a hypothesis, they say they are making a hypothesis. To say they should never make one is like saying you should never think.

"duced to matter, dimensions and laws of physics, meaning that they are the essence of the reality (everything that exists), and so that everything existent emerges from them. This seems to be the presumption of practically every physicist who gives public speechs.

Sorry this does not make sense. Essence of reality sounds like a witches ingredient. And "

the laws physics"

are changing.

My previous comment didn't imply so - it simply stated that I acknowledge the question to be open. But personally I do believe it to be from somewhere beyond here. and ofcourse it exists

,

And where is "here" your brain? And how is the question "open". "Open and shut" surely. One cannot beleive that someone so devoted to the concept of

physical evidence

beleives in a soul?

by proven assumption i mean a presumption which lies on a strong evidential basis.

So you just mean assumption. An assumption can have strong evidential basis or next to none. The meaning of words is important. I assume you have a nose, but on practically no evidence. As long as one says one is making an assumption and on what basis that is a perfectly respectable way to advance inquiry and knowledge. Medical science relies on quite a few.

Can't I just simply tell one to fuck off if i'm called a criminal?

I wouldn't recommend it in front of an arresting policeman could get you shot if you are in the US. And foul language says more about you than any point you are trying to make.

that egypt is in africa" as I said, fucktard

Once again one hopes you do not express yourself in this way before your children, it could have serious consequences. I politely suggest you calm down. You are responsible for what you write, no one else.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi spice -

Could you repost that link?
All I could find with google was paraphrases of small parts of it.

sorry about that -
I was distracted by an insulting dithering twit.

while it is fortunate to have that document,
and I noted at the time its likely effect,
finding it was an accident of fate which no one expected.
I myself f prefer directed research,
and I've pointed out several million dollars worth of excavations
which would provide incontrovertible data.

If you want to stop speculation about the pyramids being used to sell shit,
then that is what it is going to take: millions of dollars of excavation.

[Skiessa]

Don't worry, i don't buy shit.

But you beleive in foul language, hopefully not in front of your children.

, the physical form of the evidence is a requirement if you want to prove something, rather than just hypothesizing. Hypotheses at their best are not scientific theories, and are not evidence for anything.

So you do not beleive in time? or black hoies? etc?

And I am afraid you do not understand English usuage. When Scientists make a hypothesis, they say they are making a hypothesis. To say they should never make one is like saying you should never think.

"duced to matter, dimensions and laws of physics, meaning that they are the essence of the reality (everything that exists), and so that everything existent emerges from them. This seems to be the presumption of practically every physicist who gives public speechs.

Sorry this does not make sense. Essence of reality sounds like a witches ingredient. And "

the laws physics"

are changing.

My previous comment didn't imply so - it simply stated that I acknowledge the question to be open. But personally I do believe it to be from somewhere beyond here. and ofcourse it exists

,

And where is "here" your brain? And how is the question "open". "Open and shut" surely. One cannot beleive that someone so devoted to the concept of

physical evidence

beleives in a soul?

by proven assumption i mean a presumption which lies on a strong evidential basis.

So you just mean assumption. An assumption can have strong evidential basis or next to none. The meaning of words is important. I assume you have a nose, but on practically no evidence. As long as one says one is making an assumption and on what basis that is a perfectly respectable way to advance inquiry and knowledge. Medical science relies on quite a few.

Can't I just simply tell one to fuck off if i'm called a criminal?

I wouldn't recommend it in front of an arresting policeman could get you shot if you are in the US. And foul language says more about you than any point you are trying to make.

that egypt is in africa" as I said, fucktard

Once again one hopes you do not express yourself in this way before your children, it could have serious consequences. I politely suggest you calm down. You are responsible for what you write, no one else.

"So you do not beleive in time? or black hoies? etc?" physical evidence can be an experimental result as well. as we have with both time and black holes. the open question with them though is that what is the essence of them, since both the concepts and the experimental results describe the interaction of them only, as well as in all of physics.

"To say they should never make one is like saying you should never think." when have i said that one should not make hypotheses?

" Essence of reality sounds like a witches ingredient." look up your dictionary. all the science has ever observed are interactions between objects - it has never answered to the very simple question of what something is. we always have to describe further when defining of what we think that something is, and all we can do is to describe it's relation further into it's environment. what is the matter, what is the space, what is the universe and so on. interactions can not create the universe alone, because to interact one needs something that iteracts, and something to interact in relation to. that something, the true nature of the objects we observe is the thing we are completely missing and often even without realizing it.

"And where is "here" your brain? And how is the question "open". "Open and shut" surely. One cannot beleive that someone so devoted to the concept of

physical evidence

beleives in a soul?" my belief builds on my personal experience, and i wouldn't ask you to believe it with me. that's the acceptable role of belief in the scientific world - you may believe, but don't force others to believe with you. the fact that i believe in something doesn't mean that i'm willing to believe anything, lol. aren't you just calling the mainstream archaeological view a belief system?

"So you just mean assumption. An assumption can have strong evidential basis or next to none. The meaning of words is important. I assume you have a nose, but on practically no evidence." i mean assumption with strong evidential basis.

"As long as one says one is making an assumption and on what basis that is a perfectly respectable way to advance inquiry and knowledge. Medical science relies on quite a few." the base of the assumption in relation to the use of the assumption is what matters. assuming something within the context of a scientific study in order to see if it works is perfectly fine, whereas setting something a academical default worldwide meanwhile eating popcorn and waiting the evidence to pop up is not.

"I wouldn't recommend it in front of an arresting policeman could get you shot if you are in the US." so you are the policeman who shoots civilians then? this often seems to be the case with the liberals - believe in own values so strong that one can even use violence against the ones who believe otherwise. sadly the first victim of their belief is the discussion, because they feel they are above it.

"You are responsible for what you say" likewise. if you mindlessly pull up the racial factor to the table and then start to babble about mid-easterns, then it's no wonder that people may think that you are referring to egyptian's race instead of the continent they are living in.

[E.P. Grondine]

"but the people of the Middle East are, it seems, fair game." funny thing though, the facial features of the sphinx are sometimes thought to be more african than mid-east.
but anyways I do believe in the water erosion hypothesis, and definetely don't think that mr. khafre did more than re-carved the head of the meow-meow at the best. here I am again, taking more stuff away from the brown skinned people. I could draw my cartouche on all of this white quilt. please call me racist more, i draw power from the liberal rhetorics hysteria.

Skiessa, as no one has ever found anything but the remains of Egyptians in the area,
if it a safe assumption that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids,
and that they were the ancestors of today's Egyptians.
As to the ancient Egyptians genetic mix,
I do not know of recent modern studies of their mt DNA haplogroups.

As to the water erosion process,
in earlier times the climate of Egypt was different,
and the plateau also was not covered with sand then either.
Thus the Giza plateau had flash floods
which poured into the Sphinx enclosure.

Now many people will not talk about this,
but the Sphinx was visited by people for several thousand years.
They needed to pee, and would look for places to pee,
and the Sphinx was one of those places.
After they peed, their pee would evaporate,
and the formation of salt crystals off urine
would flake off rock from the walls of the enclosure.

In addition to the sites I mentioned to you earlier,
the central Egyptian archive, the House of Life, has not been located yet.
Not too much is known about the Lower Kingdom before the formation of the united state,
and the Lower Kingdom's ties to the Mediterranean are not well known.