That you, Parrot. I had spent the last hour or so typing up a continuation of this thread for Gabeed and Finn, and I'm glad I can now say it's for you as well. I thank you for being reasonable and professional.
Most of what follows is a response to Gabeed's and Finn's questions, numbered according to my questions. I'll get to your questions when I have more time (pretty busy yesterday and today -- being on shows yourself, as I've been told, I'm sure you can appreciate the murderous schedule).
For Gabeed:
1) Indeed, records are few or non-existent for many things. But it is a common argument against paranormal phenomena that ?absence of evidence is evidence of absence?. In being fair, in being scientific, shouldn?t all things be weighed in the same scales? Without mention of these very usual features of the great pyramid, we can only assume the Egyptians knew about them because they claimed the entire monument as their own. One isolated question about what they can?t claim to know can be written off with ?maybe we?ll find that piece of the puzzle someday?, but when more and more questions like this keep coming up, eventually one has to say ?What they knew and recorded outweighs what they didn?t record and what we see now ? How long can this go before we have to question the Egyptian claim altogether??
After all, science demands proof as a bottom line. It isn?t philosophy. So, without some Egyptian artifact cross-referencing or outright confirming they knew of this very unique feature in their greatest monument, we have only the assumption that they built it. Of course, it?s a fair assumption, but without hard confirmation it is, still, only a theory, a possibility. It is just as possible that no mention will ever be found because they never recorded it at all, as they didn?t know about it, being technologically unable to explore the 8? shaft (assuming they found the pyramid, a relic of a lost, earlier civilization). As Finn said in regards to my third point, this is like seeing ?cookies?. It?s connecting a people with a discovery despite a lack of evidence. I?d like to see some allusion to this very unusual but clearly essential component of this culture?s greatest religious monument and greatest technological achievement ? Even some legend scrawled on a wall that references the ?Brass eyes of the stone guardian? or something. Anything that indicates they knew this existed, since they supposedly built it.
2) The erosion. Indeed, Egypt does get little water these days, the same as it did(n?t) during the time of ancient Egypt. However, in 10000 bc, the area was different. There was sufficient rainfall to account for the erosion on the Sphinx. This, in conjunction with the celestial alignment (my Point #3) makes a very good case for the monuments existing that far back (and possibly built even earlier).
5) Indeed, I could accept lack of torch-traces with the just ?cover it as we go? approach that makes sense for a tomb. However, it has been argued that the reason for the missing body and tomb treasure and multiple sarcophagi are due to grave robbers in antiquity. Surely anyone entering before the British in the 19th century would have used fire for light, thus leaving traces of torches or at least the burned oil from lanterns. Some leaves traces along stone walls. The lack of it in the pyramid suggests it was never opened until the 19th century. So, either some tomb raiders in the distant past had electricity or at least non-flame-based light, or there wasn?t a treasure in there to begin with.
For Finn:
3) The celestial alignments aren?t just a few isolated pieces. There?s a complex pattern to them. In 10500bc, there is a multitude of factors that align with the Giza site. The three pyramids being Orion?s belt is constant, but in 10500bc ? the end of the last ice age when refugees from drowned coastal societies would have begun establishing a new civilization ? has the 8? ?air shafts? aligned with constellations, the Sphinx gazing directly at its own constellation (Leo), (which also tends to suggest that the Sphinx was originally fully lion, rather than the chiseled down head we see today), and the time for the erosion matches. In addition, the ?funeral boats? are, when studied by shipwrights, clearly ocean-going vessels, not the coastal or river-going boats one would expect from the Egyptians. This further suggests a refugee society who built this site, refugees due to the flooding of the world at that time.
Of course, this doesn?t point to aliens, but it doesn?t have to. When I started this thread (however it was merged later with another), I spoke of aliens as well as Atlanteans and other lost civilizations. ?Alien? does not necessarily mean little green man, after all. Alien just needs to mean ?not us?.
4) The alignment to true north isn?t a doubt of the Egyptians? knowledge of cardinal points, but their precision in making it so perfect. It?s just another question about the degree of their technology.
This also has a connection to Point #3. In 10500bc, it has been said (though I admit to not studying this one in particular) that, accounting for the precession of the Earth, the Great Pyramid would have been positioned at a perfect centerpoint on the globe, indeed along what would have been the equator at the time. I?ve always been curious about that and am eager for information on that one above all others.
For Parrot:
I indeed try to avoid most "history" or "UFO" shows with the same effort with which I avoid debunking or skeptical shows (no offense). TV is what it is: Selling sensationalism. I prefer to read. And I'll be the first to say that every discipline of ufology, from alien abduction to alien archeology, has its share of "bad representatives". I feel, just as with mainstream researchers, human ego, bias and paranoia plays a large part in their research. Of course, there's no telling when agreements naturally end and when a show's producers begin, stepping in to "create tension" by offering counterpoints that may not have happened. Editing can change context so much, as I'm sure you know. Personally, I find the better places to listen to ufologists talk are at college lectures or debates, where you get the whole context. I'd be interesting to have some of those televised.
As for my "best evidence" to offer, I'm already short of time so I'll let the responses to Gabeed and Finn suffice for now. I'm sure there's enough there to begin with, and we can see where things go from there.
Looking forward to talkin' to you.