[dardner]

Hello gkisystems,
I have long been interested in the mystery of pyramid construction at Giza. Until very recently I had never heard a plausible explanation of how they were constructed. I think, for some of us, when a satisfactory answer is not forthcoming we tend to be given to outlandish speculation. I don’t believe this is necessarily harmful. It is simply the ridiculous countering the ridiculous, after all, you have to start somewhere. After watching a video where a very plausible case was made for the construction techniques of the great pyramid, I was alarmed to find in the comments section an almost dogmatic adherence to some of the most flighty explanations ever propagated on this matter, as if a theory is more important than the truth. Quite an irony given the orthodoxy they are attempting to counter.
My point is one about what do we really know, what do we believe we know, and why do we believe it. The accusation of “conspiracy theorist” doesn’t amount to much of a response but have you offered anything beyond speculation? You can have a number of facts that can lead one to wonder but it is less clear in these cases if the conclusion you have reached actually follows from them.
There is, unfortunately, a good chance that the person you are debating has absolutely nothing to offer and you are being accused of wearing a tin foil hat by someone who is defending a position so thin that it is only held together by its repetition. Suffice it to say “everybody knows” is not a defense of your opponents position and if he is not willing to be held to the same standard of proof that you are then you are probably wasting your time. If you need to continue for some sense of personal satisfaction then defend your points, stay logical, and hurl the ad hominems with each rebut of their positions.