Gabeed said:
Except that there was the sarcophagus found inside, the cartouche in one of the chambers above the burial chamber, and the fact that all the other pyramids in Egypt, including the two next to the Great Pyramid, are also tombs. There are also the small pyramids adjacent to the Great Pyramid dedicated to Khufu's queens and mother (I'm using my Ancient Egypt reference by Oakes and Gahlin as a source). The pyramids in Sudan are tombs.
The "sarcophagus" is just a stone box, with no lid, either. And too deep to be a sarcophagus. No sarcophagus in Egypt is even remotely like it. It is plain and unadorned. More of a pool or baptism tub than anything. Egyptian sarcophagi are lavishly carved and decorated. This one is as plain as a cereal box. You'd think the one buried in the greatest pyramid EVER would have a grand sarcophagus, not this simple stone box.
The rest of the Great Pyramid is equally plain. No writing anywhere (except the one tiny bit of MIS-SPELLED graffiti that was "coincidentally" found when funding was about to be pulled for lack of discovering tomb-evidence).
All the real Egyptian tombs are decorated floor-to-ceiling. The Great Pyramid is the total opposite. No writing. No pictures. Nothing.
No body or funerary decorations or treasure of any kind were ever found within the Great Pyramid. And don't save "grave robbers" -- When the Great Pyramid was opened (with dynamite), the passages were so heavily sealed no grave robber could have ever opened them (it took dynamite, after all).
There is no record at all in the extensive Egyptian records of the Great Pyramid being built as a tomb, mentioned as a tomb, etc.
The pyramid exists, yes, but there IS NO EVIDENCE that it was built as or ever used as a tomb. In the same manner skeptics like to attack UFOs, there simply is no evidence other than the claim of Egyptians and Egyptologists. But when UFO witnesses report a UFO, all they have is their claim, and they are scorned. Why should we treat the "Great Pyramid is a tomb" assumption any differently? Where is the hard evidence? If you want to say ancient aliens has no evidence, to show you, then I say show me the proof the Great Pyramid was a tomb. Show it. Bring it. Not the wimpy "Egyptologists say so and I've got no other argument than the dogmatic bias history books". No, show me the body. Show me the records. Show me the burial treasures. Show me the hard evidence you oh-so easily demand of ufologists.
In fact, all the evidence says the Great Pyramid was NOT a tomb. If it were, it would have floor-to-ceiling writing like all other Egyptian tombs, it would be mentioned in the thousands of years of records as being a tomb like the others are, it would have had a BODY in the TOMB like the others had.
Just because there are small, poorly built pyramids next to the Great Pyramid means nothing. Years ago, I went to Highgate Cemetery outside London, the "Victorian Valhalla", built in the 19th century. Yet I saw a tombstone dated 1995. Someone just loved the cemetery so much they wanted to be buried there. Fine. Cool. But does that one grave mean the cemetery was built in the 1990s? Of course not. And just because there are crappy, wannabe (great) pyramids next to THE Great Pyramid doesn't prove anything except that the Egyptians wanted to emulate this great monument. It doesn't prove they built it or ever entered it.
Most likely the ancients found this amazing monument, understandably admired it, and then tried to duplicate it. But they couldn't. It's building technology was beyond them. Else, why don't we have two or three or ten pyramids equal to the Great Pyramid? If anything, pyramid technology should have ADVANCED, not receded with successive dynasties. Our skyscrapers keep getting taller, after all. Human nature is pack-animal, based on outdoing each other, and nobody had the egos or resources to match "gods" (as Pharaohs were deemed to be). You can't just ASSUME they didn't have the resources. That's an assumption, not science, not based on evidence. If they did it once, they had the means to do it again. But they didn't. They didn't even come close. I.E. they couldn't. Someone else made the Great Pyramid for purposes other than a tomb.
Gabeed said:
Your statements smack of a lack of context. I don't want to give the impression that "only if you're in a special club can you be an authority on ancient civilizations," as I admire laymen who research for themselves, but wouldn't archaeologists who have spent their entire careers studying a specific civilization be more qualified and more knowledgeable than a journalist like Graham Hancock, since they know the minor details about the civilization and have a better idea of the context? . . . I'd like to add that archaeology is a very competitive and intense field . . .
That is a big assumption as well. Just because archeologists spend more time at something doesn't mean they're better at it. After all, I can't get any decent tech support from MicroSoft's overpaid career guys, yet a kid a third their age huddled in his mom's basement who builds his own computer can answer me directly and clearly (and not charge me $40 bucks). Or Bill Gates himself? How did this 20-something kid make something the old computer guys couldn't dream of? (if he actually did, but that's another story) Surely the old computer guys, who started building the things when Gates as an infant, had a head-start time-wise, and surely the budding computer industry was "competitive" and filled with people looking for new discoveries and break-out concepts. Yet Gates trumped 'em all.
Human history is filled with outsiders and amateurs showing the old dogs new tricks. Historians and scientists are the most common people to be turned upside-down. After all, why do scientific labs hire young, new talent? Maybe they have ideas the old guys don't have, even with 30 or 40 years more experience. I go on on forever on this one, but I'll sum it up: Just because Graham Hancock didn't go to a college for archeology or spend most of his life in the field doesn't mean he couldn't have found the right answers simply by looking in new places and new directions.
Gabeed, you make another huge assumption (and mistake) by putting your money on mainstream guys just because they're at it longer or are "more competitive". Maybe it's the competitive nature of archeology that holds them back from true discoveries. After all, being "competitive" means operating within the established rules of the game, in this case, orthodox, dogmatic Egyptology. Look at how professional sports are played. Football is a good example. Same plays every time. Nothing new. Nothing daring. Because most humans don't have the balls to risk their place in the game by putting all the chips on the table and going for a risky move.
Yet inspired "amateurs" do.
"Non-scientists" like Graham Hancock DO what scientists SHOULD be doing. They look at new ideas. They look at evidence from ALL fields. They go where the evidence leads, not where the establishment says it SHOULD lead. Graham Hancock doesn't have an Egyptologist's reputation to lose. He has no risk for pursuing and publishing ideas outside the box. Maybe that's why he gets the real story.
