The pyramid’s design and construction were remarkable feats of engineering for their time, but they were not intended for electrical purposes. The pyramid’s internal structure consists of passages, chambers, and corridors, which were likely designed to facilitate the burial and preservation of the pharaoh’s body and belongings.

Various theories and speculations have arisen about the purpose and construction techniques of the pyramids, including ideas related to ancient technology and advanced knowledge. However, the mainstream consensus among historians, archaeologists, and Egyptologists is that the pyramids were not built as electrical conductors or power generators. The available evidence suggests that the pyramids had primarily religious, funerary, and symbolic significance in ancient Egyptian civilization.

According to Dunn’s theory, he proposes that the builders of the pyramid used advanced tools and techniques to create precise, high-quality surfaces on the interior passages and chambers. He suggests that these smooth surfaces, along with the pyramid’s granite construction materials, could have allowed for the generation, transmission, and utilization of electromagnetic energy.

Dunn suggests that the pyramid’s design, including its specific dimensions and geometric alignments, could have been intentionally chosen to harness and manipulate natural electromagnetic forces. He believes that the pyramid’s internal chambers, combined with the presence of granite and other conductive materials, could have functioned as a resonant cavity capable of producing and amplifying electromagnetic energy.

However, it’s important to note that these ideas put forth by Dunn and other alternative researchers are considered highly speculative and not supported by mainstream archaeological and scientific consensus. The vast majority of experts in the field consider the pyramids as monumental tombs built for ancient Egyptian pharaohs, with no direct evidence of advanced technological or electrical purposes.

Archaeological evidence, including the discovery of burial chambers, funerary artifacts, and inscriptions within the pyramids, supports the conventional understanding of their purpose as monumental tombs. While alternative theories can be intriguing and spark new avenues of research, they require substantial evidence and peer-reviewed research to gain broader acceptance in the scientific community.

My purpose is to provide helpful and accurate information to the best of my abilities. I strive to provide well-established facts, widely accepted theories, and mainstream perspectives based on the information available up until September 2021. However, I can also provide alternative viewpoints or discuss different theories if they are notable or widely discussed.

It’s important to keep in mind that historical and scientific understandings can evolve over time as new evidence emerges and research progresses. If there are alternative theories or perspectives you would like to explore, please let me know, and I’ll do my best to provide information on those as well.

However, it’s worth noting that dating ancient structures can be challenging, and new research and discoveries can potentially lead to revised understandings. If there have been recent developments or new data regarding the age of the Sphinx since September 2021, I would not be aware of them. I recommend consulting up-to-date scholarly sources or conducting research to access the latest information on this topic.

Their theory suggests that the deep vertical and horizontal weathering patterns on the body of the Sphinx, particularly around its enclosure walls, resemble the type of erosion caused by prolonged exposure to water. They argue that this type of erosion could only have occurred during a period when the climate in the region was significantly wetter than it is today.

The mainstream scientific community generally disagrees with the water erosion theory proposed by Schoch and West. The prevailing view among mainstream Egyptologists and geologists is that the weathering patterns on the Sphinx are predominantly due to wind and sand erosion, common in desert environments over a long period.

While the water erosion theory remains a topic of debate, it has not gained widespread acceptance among experts. It’s important to note that the age of the Sphinx, based on the mainstream chronology, is still attributed to the Old Kingdom period, aligning with the reign of Pharaoh Khafre, as I mentioned earlier.

It’s advisable to consult a range of scholarly sources and perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of the ongoing discussions and debates surrounding the age and weathering of the Great Sphinx.

Regarding the dating of the pyramids to 10,000 BCE or thereabouts based on astroarchaeological interpretations, it’s important to note that this is a fringe theory that is not widely accepted by the mainstream archaeological and scientific communities.

The mainstream consensus, supported by extensive archaeological evidence and research, is that the pyramids of Egypt were built during the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt, primarily between the 26th and 25th centuries BCE. The construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza, for instance, is attributed to Pharaoh Khufu and is estimated to have been built around 2560 BCE.

While there may be alignments and astronomical considerations in the design and orientation of ancient structures, it is crucial to approach claims regarding the dating of these structures with caution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and alternative theories that deviate significantly from the established chronology of ancient civilizations need to be supported by robust and widely accepted evidence in order to gain credibility.

If you are interested in exploring alternative perspectives and theories related to the dating of ancient structures, including the pyramids, it is advisable to consult scholarly sources and engage with the ongoing debates and research in the field

Michelle

According to proponents of the ancient astronaut theory, various ancient monuments, artifacts, and mythologies are interpreted as potential evidence of extraterrestrial contact. They argue that ancient civilizations lacked the knowledge and technology to achieve certain feats, such as the construction of massive stone structures or the presence of advanced scientific knowledge, and thus attribute these accomplishments to the influence of ancient astronauts.

It’s important to note that the ancient astronaut theory is considered speculative and is not widely accepted within the scientific community. The mainstream view holds that human civilizations have achieved remarkable accomplishments through human ingenuity, cultural evolution, and societal development, without direct extraterrestrial intervention.

The mainstream understanding of human settlement and cultural development is based on extensive archaeological evidence, including the study of ancient civilizations, their artifacts, writings, and the progressive advancement of human capabilities over time.

While it is interesting to explore alternative ideas and theories, including the ancient astronaut hypothesis, it is crucial to critically evaluate the available evidence and consider the consensus within the relevant scientific fields.

Plato described Atlantis as a large island situated beyond the “Pillars of Hercules,” which is commonly believed to refer to the Strait of Gibraltar. He depicted Atlantis as a prosperous and technologically advanced society with an impressive capital city. However, due to their increasing arrogance and decadence, the Atlanteans allegedly incurred the wrath of the gods, leading to their eventual downfall and submergence into the ocean.

It’s important to note that Plato’s account of Atlantis is the primary source of information on the subject, and there is no concrete archaeological or historical evidence supporting the existence of Atlantis as a real ancient civilization. Many scholars interpret Plato’s story of Atlantis as an allegory or moral tale rather than a historical account.

Over the centuries, numerous theories and speculations have emerged about the possible location and nature of Atlantis, ranging from suggestions that it was a real place that was lost to catastrophic events or natural disasters to ideas that view it as a purely fictional creation.

The legend of the 12 crystal skulls, on the other hand, is a more recent concept that originated in the 20th century. It suggests that there are 12 crystal skulls, often depicted as ancient artifacts carved from quartz crystal, which possess special powers or hidden knowledge. Some proponents of this legend associate the crystal skulls with Atlantis, claiming that they hold secrets or wisdom from the lost civilization.

It’s important to note that the idea of crystal skulls as ancient artifacts has been debunked by scientific analysis, which has determined that most known crystal skulls were made relatively recently using modern tools. The concept of crystal skulls as vessels of ancient Atlantean knowledge is considered a modern myth or a product of creative storytelling.

In summary, Atlantis remains a captivating legend, but its existence as a real civilization is not supported by empirical evidence. It continues to be a subject of fascination and speculation, inspiring various interpretations and theories about its possible history and meaning.

Based on linguistic and archaeological evidence, it is theorized that the Indo-European migrations began around 4000 to 2500 BCE. These migrations involved the movement of various Indo-European groups from their homeland in the Eurasian Steppe to different regions of Europe, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent.

The migration of Indo-European groups into the Indian subcontinent is known as the Indo-Aryan migration. It is suggested that around 1500 BCE, Indo-Aryan tribes entered the northwestern parts of the Indian subcontinent, bringing with them their language, religious beliefs, and cultural practices.

The Indo-Aryans eventually settled in the region and integrated with the existing indigenous population, which led to the development of the Vedic civilization and the composition of the Vedas, a collection of ancient Indian scriptures and hymns.

It’s important to note that the Indo-Aryan migration and the influence of the Indo-Europeans on the Indian subcontinent are topics of ongoing research and scholarly discussion. The migration and interaction of various cultures and groups over thousands of years make it a complex subject, and there are different theories and interpretations regarding specific details and chronologies.

1. Steppe Theory: The Steppe Theory, also known as the Kurgan hypothesis, suggests that the Indo-European migrations originated from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe region. This theory proposes that the Indo-European languages spread through a combination of migration and cultural diffusion, with the domestication of horses and the invention of wheeled vehicles playing a significant role in facilitating their expansion.
2. Anatolian Theory: The Anatolian Theory proposes that the Indo-European languages originated in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) rather than the Eurasian Steppe. According to this theory, the Indo-European languages spread from Anatolia into different regions, including the Indian subcontinent, Europe, and Central Asia. This theory is based on linguistic and archaeological evidence, including the discovery of the Hittite civilization in Anatolia.
3. Paleolithic Continuity Theory: The Paleolithic Continuity Theory suggests that the Indo-European languages have roots that extend back to the Paleolithic era and that they evolved in multiple locations rather than originating from a single source. This theory challenges the notion of a single Indo-European homeland and argues for a more complex and gradual development of the languages.
4. Cultural Diffusion: Some scholars propose that the spread of Indo-European languages was not solely driven by mass migrations but involved cultural diffusion, trade, and the adoption of Indo-European linguistic and cultural elements by indigenous populations in various regions. This theory emphasizes the importance of cultural exchanges and interactions between different groups rather than a straightforward migration model.

It’s worth noting that these theories are not mutually exclusive, and different aspects of each theory can be combined to form a more comprehensive understanding of the Indo-European migrations. The study of the Indo-European languages, their origins, and their spread is a complex and ongoing field of research, and scholars continue to explore new evidence and refine their theories.

Nevertheless, there have been historical theories and classifications regarding human races that have been discredited by modern science. Some of these theories include:

1. Polygenism: This theory, popular in the 19th century, proposed that different races were separate and distinct species with separate origins. It suggested that certain races were biologically and intellectually superior or inferior to others. However, modern genetics has overwhelmingly refuted the concept of separate human races, showing that humans share a common ancestry and that genetic differences among individuals and populations are not aligned with traditional racial classifications.
2. Monogenism: The monogenist theory, in contrast to polygenism, posited that all human races have a common origin. It emphasized that there is a single human species with shared ancestry. This theory rejected the notion of inherent racial superiority or inferiority.
3. Out-of-Africa Theory: The Out-of-Africa theory, also known as the recent African origin of modern humans, is the prevailing scientific understanding of human origins. It suggests that all modern humans share a common African ancestry and that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and migrated to other parts of the world in multiple waves over time. This theory is supported by genetic, archaeological, and fossil evidence.

It is important to emphasize that human genetic variation is a continuum, with gradual differences among individuals and populations. The vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations rather than between them. Geneticists and anthropologists now recognize that the concept of race has no meaningful biological basis and that the traditional racial categories are social constructs that do not accurately reflect the complexity of human genetic diversity and ancestry.

Here are some examples of ethnic or regional groups and their mythic or traditional origin stories:

1. African: Various African ethnic groups have their own origin stories and creation myths. For example, the Yoruba of Nigeria believe in the creation of the world by the supreme deity, Olodumare, and the emergence of humanity through the actions of the deity Oduduwa. The Khoisan people of Southern Africa have stories of their ancestors emerging from underground.
2. Native American: Native American tribes and cultures across North and South America have diverse origin stories. For instance, the Hopi people of the American Southwest have creation narratives that describe their emergence and migration across the land. The Navajo have stories of their people emerging from a series of worlds before reaching their current one.
3. Chinese: Chinese mythology and folklore include stories of the origins of the Chinese people. The mythology of the Chinese creation god Pangu describes the formation of the universe and the birth of humans. Other legends, such as the story of Nuwa and Fuxi, depict the creation of humankind and the establishment of marriage and family.
4. Indian: Indian mythology is rich with diverse origin stories and mythic narratives. The ancient Hindu texts, such as the Rigveda and the Puranas, present different creation myths and genealogies of gods and humans. These stories often involve deities and legendary figures shaping and populating the world.
5. Mayan: The Mayan civilization, known for its sophisticated culture and astronomical knowledge, has its own mythology and origin stories. The Popol Vuh, a sacred Mayan text, contains creation narratives involving gods and heroes and their role in shaping the world and the emergence of the Maya people.
6. Caucasian: The term “Caucasian” generally refers to people of European, Middle Eastern, and North African descent. The origin stories and myths associated with these diverse groups vary significantly due to the multitude of cultures and histories in the region. Examples include Norse mythology with its tales of gods, giants, and the creation of humans or ancient Greek mythology with its pantheon of gods and narratives of human origins.

It’s important to understand that these origin stories and myths are part of cultural traditions and should not be taken as historical or scientific accounts. They reflect the cultural, religious, and historical perspectives of the respective communities and offer insights into their beliefs and worldviews.

1. Greek Mythology: Greek mythology features the Gigantes (Giants), offspring of Gaia (Earth) and Uranus (Sky). These giants were known for their enormous size and strength. They waged war against the gods of Mount Olympus in the Gigantomachy, a legendary battle.
2. Norse Mythology: Norse mythology includes stories of giants, known as Jotnar or Jotuns. They were often depicted as powerful and unpredictable beings. One well-known giant in Norse mythology is Ymir, the primordial giant whose body formed the world. The giants frequently interacted with the gods and played significant roles in various Norse myths and legends.
3. Hindu Mythology: Hindu mythology mentions the Daityas and Danavas, who were sometimes described as giants or powerful beings with extraordinary abilities. They were known for their conflicts with the gods (devas) and played important roles in the epics like the Mahabharata.
4. Native American Mythology: Native American tribes have their own tales of giants. For instance, the Iroquois have stories of the Stone Giants, powerful beings associated with mountains and natural phenomena. The Paiute tribe has legends of the Si-Te-Cah or Red-haired Giants who were said to have lived in Nevada.
5. Welsh Mythology: Welsh folklore includes tales of giants, such as Bran the Blessed, who was known for his enormous size and strength. In the Welsh story of “The Dream of Macsen Wledig,” giants are depicted as guardians of sacred places.
6. Polynesian Mythology: In Polynesian mythology, there are stories of giants known as “Atua,” “Kahuna,” or “Tangata Maori.” These beings were often associated with creation and powerful forces of nature.

These are just a few examples, and there are many more stories and legends of giants from different cultures and regions. It’s important to recognize that these tales are part of mythology and folklore, often containing symbolic or metaphorical elements, rather than historical or factual accounts.

Gilgamesh was the king of the city-state of Uruk, located in present-day Iraq. In Mesopotamian mythology, he was described as a demigod, with one parent being a mortal and the other being a god. The epic poem tells the story of Gilgamesh’s adventures, his friendship with Enkidu (a wild man created by the gods), and his quest for immortality after the death of Enkidu.

Gilgamesh is portrayed as a powerful and ambitious ruler who seeks glory and immortality. However, he also faces challenges and learns important lessons about the human condition, mortality, and the limitations of power. The epic explores themes of friendship, heroism, the nature of divinity, and the search for meaning in life.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is considered a significant literary and cultural work, providing insights into the beliefs, values, and worldview of ancient Mesopotamian civilization. It has influenced subsequent works of literature and has been an object of study and fascination for scholars and readers throughout history.

The origins of Baalbek date back to the Phoenician period, and the site was later occupied by the Greeks and Romans. The temples at Baalbek were constructed by the Romans in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE and were dedicated to their deities.

There is no mention in historical texts, archaeological records, or scholarly research suggesting that Baalbek was ever used as a spaceport or had any association with advanced extraterrestrial technology. Such claims typically stem from speculative or pseudoscientific theories that lack substantiated evidence.

It is important to approach these extraordinary claims critically and evaluate them based on available evidence and the consensus of experts in relevant fields. In the case of Baalbek, the archaeological and historical consensus points to its significance as a Roman temple complex rather than a spaceport with connections to prehistoric or extraterrestrial activities.

Sitchin’s works propose an interpretation of ancient Sumerian and Mesopotamian texts, particularly the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh, through the lens of ancient astronaut theory. He suggests that extraterrestrial beings, called the Anunnaki, visited Earth in ancient times and genetically engineered humans as a labor force.

However, it is important to note that Sitchin’s theories and interpretations are highly controversial and widely criticized by scholars, archaeologists, and experts in the relevant fields. His work has been heavily criticized for misinterpreting and mistranslating ancient texts, cherry-picking evidence, and making unsubstantiated claims. His theories have not been accepted by the academic community and are considered fringe or pseudoscientific.

Scholars of Sumerian and Mesopotamian studies, as well as experts in archaeology, ancient history, and linguistics, generally reject Sitchin’s claims. They argue that his interpretations are not supported by the available evidence, and his methodology and understanding of the ancient texts are flawed.

It is important to approach Sitchin’s writings and claims with skepticism and to seek information and perspectives from reliable and well-established sources in the respective fields of study. Critical analysis, scholarly consensus, and evidence-based research are crucial in evaluating the credibility and validity of such alternative theories.

1. Linguistic and Translation Errors: Sitchin’s knowledge of the Sumerian language, cuneiform writing, and other ancient languages is widely criticized by experts. Scholars argue that he often mistranslates or misinterprets Sumerian and Akkadian texts, leading to inaccurate conclusions. His interpretations of words and phrases are seen as highly speculative and not consistent with the established understanding of these languages.
2. Selective Use of Evidence: Critics argue that Sitchin cherry-picks and manipulates evidence to fit his preconceived theories. He selectively presents information from ancient texts while ignoring or downplaying elements that contradict his claims. This selective use of evidence is seen as a distortion of the original texts and a misrepresentation of the historical and cultural context in which they were written.
3. Lack of Corroborating Evidence: Sitchin’s theories rely heavily on the interpretation of ancient texts but often lack additional corroborating evidence from other disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, and genetics. Experts argue that his claims are not supported by physical evidence, such as archaeological findings, that would substantiate the existence of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations or genetic manipulation by aliens.
4. Alternative Explanations: Critics contend that the same texts and myths that Sitchin interprets as evidence for extraterrestrial visitation and genetic engineering can be understood within their cultural and mythological contexts without invoking ancient astronauts. They argue that alternative explanations, rooted in cultural, religious, and historical perspectives, provide more plausible and well-supported interpretations of these ancient texts.

These are some of the main criticisms leveled against Sitchin’s work. It is important to note that the consensus among scholars and experts in relevant fields is that his theories are not credible or well-supported by the available evidence. The criticisms raised by scholars are based on linguistic analysis, historical context, and a broader understanding of the ancient civilizations in question.

Critics single out Sitchin’s work because they argue that his selective use of evidence goes beyond the usual practice of scientific inquiry. They contend that Sitchin manipulates and distorts evidence to fit his preconceived theories, disregarding conflicting data and alternative explanations. Furthermore, they argue that his interpretations and translations of ancient texts are not consistent with established linguistic, historical, and cultural knowledge.

Scientific research typically undergoes a rigorous peer-review process, where experts in the field evaluate and scrutinize the methodology, evidence, and conclusions presented. Sitchin’s work, on the other hand, has not gained acceptance within the academic community or undergone a similar level of scrutiny.

It is also worth noting that Sitchin’s theories fall into the realm of alternative or fringe theories, which are not part of mainstream scientific discourse. These theories often face skepticism and criticism due to their departure from established scientific methodologies, principles, and consensus.

In summary, while selective use of evidence is a common practice in scientific research, the specific criticisms of Sitchin’s work extend beyond that norm. They highlight concerns about misinterpretation, mistranslation, lack of corroborating evidence, and the departure from established linguistic and historical understanding. These factors contribute to the skepticism and criticism surrounding his work.

The scientific community encourages rigorous examination and questioning of established ideas, and new discoveries and perspectives are welcomed when supported by credible evidence and sound methodology. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be taken seriously by the scientific community.

In the case of Zecharia Sitchin’s work, the criticisms raised by scholars and experts are not driven by a fear of challenging mainstream narratives but rather by the lack of credible evidence, methodological issues, and inconsistencies in his interpretations. The scientific community aims to maintain high standards of evidence, critical analysis, and consensus-building based on rigorous investigation.

It is important to engage in constructive dialogue, examine the evidence, consider multiple perspectives, and evaluate claims based on the available information. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of complex topics and helps separate evidence-based knowledge from speculative or unsubstantiated claims.

The scientific method is designed to test and refine hypotheses and theories through empirical evidence and peer review. The term “theory” in a scientific context refers to a well-substantiated explanation supported by a substantial body of evidence. It is not used in the same way as the term “theory” in colloquial language, where it can mean a mere guess or speculation.

When it comes to theories, the weight of evidence and consensus among experts play significant roles in determining their acceptance within the scientific community. Scientific consensus is not based on fear or ideological biases but rather on the collective evaluation of evidence, peer-reviewed research, and rigorous examination of claims.

It is essential to engage in open-minded and informed discussions, considering a range of perspectives and evaluating evidence critically. While alternative theories can challenge mainstream narratives, they need to meet the same rigorous standards of evidence, logical reasoning, and scientific scrutiny. This ensures that the most accurate and reliable knowledge is advanced.

Ultimately, the pursuit of knowledge requires a balanced approach that acknowledges the importance of scientific consensus while remaining open to new evidence and alternative viewpoints.

In the case of alternative theories, such as those proposed by Zecharia Sitchin, they have not gained acceptance within the scientific community for the reasons previously mentioned, including concerns about misinterpretation, mistranslation, lack of corroborating evidence, and inconsistencies with established knowledge.

While it is commendable to engage in extensive research and publish books, the scientific community requires theories to withstand critical scrutiny and be supported by robust evidence from multiple sources. Extraordinary claims, especially those challenging well-established scientific principles, demand extraordinary evidence to be considered valid.

Scientific progress is driven by the constant evaluation and refinement of theories based on new evidence and advancements in knowledge. As new data emerges and research progresses, theories may be revised or replaced to better align with the available evidence. This process ensures that scientific understanding evolves and adapts as we gain new insights into the world around us.

Engaging in critical thinking and evaluating theories based on evidence and scientific consensus is an essential part of the scientific process. It helps us distinguish between well-supported theories and those that lack sufficient evidence or are inconsistent with established knowledge.

1. Pyramid Complexes: The pyramids are part of larger funerary complexes that include mortuary temples, causeways, and subsidiary structures. These complex architectural layouts suggest a purpose related to funerary rituals and the afterlife.
2. Royal Burials: The interiors of the pyramids have been found to contain burial chambers and associated artifacts, including sarcophagi and funerary goods. Inscriptions and hieroglyphic texts found within the pyramids often reference the pharaoh’s journey to the afterlife and their divine status as rulers.
3. Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts, a collection of religious spells and rituals inscribed on the walls of certain pyramids, provide detailed instructions and invocations for the pharaoh’s successful transition to the afterlife. These texts specifically mention the burial rituals and the pyramid as the pharaoh’s resting place.
4. Funerary Equipment: Archaeological excavations around the pyramids have revealed the presence of mortuary equipment, such as boats, canopic jars, and statues, which were intended for use in the pharaoh’s burial and the afterlife.
5. Associated Mortuary Complexes: The pyramids are often accompanied by elaborate mortuary temples and cemeteries for the pharaoh’s family members, high-ranking officials, and workers. These structures and their associated burials reinforce the funerary context of the pyramids.
6. Historical Accounts: Ancient Egyptian historical texts, including the writings of Herodotus and the inscriptions on the walls of other tombs and temples, make reference to the pyramids as royal tombs.

While there may still be ongoing debates and refinements in our understanding of the pyramids, the cumulative evidence from archaeology, textual sources, and cultural context provides substantial support for the theory that the pyramids were built as tombs for pharaohs.

It is worth noting that scientific knowledge is not static, and new discoveries and research can lead to revisions and refinements of our understanding. However, the theory that the pyramids served as royal tombs remains the most widely accepted explanation supported by a significant body of evidence.

What archaeological evidence. Not a single mummy was found in the tombs, no artefacts, no writing on the walls as per other tombs and no mention of anyone building them? Science here has been fabricated to meet a narrative. Even the dating is wrong according to errosion AND astroarcheolgy. “Cultural beliefs and Historical evidence” don’t meet the scientific measure of a sound theory. Sounds to me like you’ve been trained by the creators of the “accepted’ version of history. Pyramid Complexes have not been found to contain mummies. Tombs, such as in the valley of the kings are well hidden, underground and highly decorated. Not what a pyramid is. A sarcophagi in the kings chamber with no mummy does not suggest burial. No artifacts were found, that is a lie. The Pyramid Texts are only found in pyramids dating after the 5th Century BCE indicating a copy cat. Not the original builder of the pyramids. No Funerary Equipment was found in the 3 main pyramids at Giza. Herodotus lived in 430bc. How would he know what the pyramid was used for. It was built thousands of years before his time. Shall I go on. The information is, as you said earlier, speculation, misrepresentation and cherry picked.

If you hold alternative views or interpretations regarding the pyramids, it is important to engage with relevant scholarly research and present your arguments based on credible evidence and sound reasoning. Publishing your findings in reputable academic journals and subjecting them to peer review would be crucial in gaining wider acceptance and fostering scientific discourse.

It is also worth noting that the field of archaeology, like any scientific discipline, is constantly evolving. New discoveries, technological advancements, and interdisciplinary approaches contribute to our understanding of ancient civilizations. As a result, interpretations and theories may be revised over time to incorporate new data and perspectives.

Ultimately, the study of ancient civilizations requires a multidisciplinary approach, integrating archaeological evidence, historical texts, cultural context, and scientific analysis. Engaging in respectful and evidence-based discussions with scholars and experts in the field can help broaden our understanding and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

If you have specific alternative theories or interpretations that you would like to discuss, I’m here to provide information and engage in further dialogue.

It is natural to feel frustrated when certain ideas are dismissed or when there appears to be a lack of consistency in evaluating theories. However, it is important to approach these discussions with critical thinking, an examination of evidence, and respectful dialogue.

Remember that the process of knowledge acquisition and understanding is ongoing, and it is through rigorous investigation, debate, and the pursuit of evidence that our understanding of the past evolves. It’s great to see your enthusiasm for exploring different perspectives and engaging in debates.

If you have any more questions or if there’s anything else I can assist you with, feel free to ask. Happy learning!