Oh, jeez. The last few posts have really given me a lot to rebuttle. Sorry in advance for the sarcasm but I can't help it when I'm attacked with arrogance.
Quoting Wikipedia? That's what you trust for evidence? And because mainstream Egyptologists say this or that somehow that's definitive? Did you read nothing about what I said concerning entrenched academia maintaining its dogma and jobs? OF COURSE the tow-the-party-line guys are going to be quoted and referenced. That's the point! New thought and theory is censored. Do you really think that if Egyptologists with differing opinions stated them publicly they'd be put in the canon? No, they'd be fired.
And why do people continue to say Von Daniken started this ball rolling? He didn't. Von Daniken wrote his first stuff in the 60s. There were books and arguments made about ancient astronauts long before Von Daniken.
Another flaw in the traditional thinking: So what if other structures nearby were not weathered? That's the point. The Sphinx and Great Pyramids were not built by the Egyptians. Other monuments nearby (of far lesser quality) were. They emulated what the unknown ancients built. Hence the different dates.
As for the "Now we know the Egyptians hauled the cut out stone ramps", this one is most laughable. Mathematically, there would have been more stone used in the ramps than in the pyramid itself. Where did the excess stone go? Besides, the ramps, even at a steep degree, would have stretched a mile back into the desert. Where's the evidence of the labor for a mile-long track? The pits? The tools? The camps? It isn't there. Ramps weren't how the pyramids were built. That's just an assumption of the British centuries ago that went unquestioned for so long it became accepted for no reason other than it was already in the books.
Ya know, critics of UFOs like to say "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". The same as in effect been said already several times in this thread. Well, if that's the case, if absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, there's absolutely ZERO evidence that the pyramids were built as tombs or by the Egyptians at all. Nowhere in Egypt are there written records of any kind about the construction of the pyramids (if there were, why do we still speculate on how they were built?) The Egyptians wrote down everything, floor to ceiling, literally. Yet never are the Great Pyramids mentioned. Furthermore, there is NO writing anywhere inside the Great Pyramid. None. Unless you count that misspelled graffiti a wealthy British explorer "conveniently found" when his funding was about to be pulled. One name, that's it, and spelled wrong too. Yet the entirety of the interior of these "tombs" is totally absent of hieroglyphics and treasure, things found in every other real tomb throughout Egypt. The only artifact about the Pharoahs ever found was a dinky statuette a hundred miles away. And don't say grave robbers. When the British dynamited their way into the pyramids, they were clearly opening passages never opened by man. These were slabs that fell into place which no man could lift (why else did they need to dynamite the things?) Yet past these never-opened doors they found absolutely zero treasure, and not even any body in these "tombs". Ergo, they were not tombs, and not built by the Egyptians.
Gabeed: Your own post has drastic internal contradictions. You say to show you the evidence, but then say I'm misguided before you even see it. Kangaroo court, anyone? Well, instead of showing you the evidence, try this: Do it yourself! Get a flat map of the globe, and mark the big sacred sites (Stonehenge, Easter Island, etc.) You'll notice an eerie symmetry. That is, if you're not so "misguided" that you actually line things up fairly and honestly to their coordinates.
Go ahead. Quote some more dogma. It makes me laugh. I'm sorry to be so rude but I thought I'd offer some challenges with this thread. I thought some folks would like the challenge. I asked for rational, informed opinions with open-minds, and instead all I'm getting is Wikipedia quotes that regurgitate the most worn-out and easily disproved dogma of all.
I've said this before an I'll say it again: Truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Panda bears, Komodo dragons, elephants, the locomotive, submarines, cell phones, the New World, flying machines, electricity, the theory of evolution, going to the moon . . . all things the entrenched, authoritative establishment said was IMPOSSIBLE. In fact, in 1896, the US Patent Office closed down. The reason? There was nothing left to invent. Everything that can be invented has already been invented.
See the kind of arrogance you defend when you just quote the establishment or defend the established views? And people call me misguided? Well, I'm sure no matter what I say you'll just laugh and find some self-delusional way to convince yourself you're right. Have your laugh, then, but it doesn't change a damn thing. The world out there is not what you think it to be or what you want it to be for the sake of your comfort bubble. And it never was.
Lake monsters, sasquatch, anti-gravity engines, sublight ships, new worlds, crystal technology and ancient aliens are simply being ridiculed and violently opposed. Eventually they'll be accepted as self-evident too. It's just a matter of time.
Now, lest one think me too much of a turd, I WELCOME debate. I welcome well thought-out, rational, open-minded arguments. But that's just not what I'm getting here. All I'm getting is status-quotes, and lame ones at that. If people are going to insult me or say I'm wrong outright without checking their evidence, can they at least put a little thought into their arguments? Is that too much to ask?