Jeez, don't get all worked up. Why so defensive? Quoting: kamalayka
And I never claimed building the pyramids was easy. I just said that the pyramid shape is the most stable.
It takes a lot more ingenuity to build a skyscraper than a pyramid.
And you never rebuked my claims: how do you explain the fact that pyramid design GRADUALLY evolved throughout the centuries? Did the aliens who could master interstellar travel need time to figure it out? Or is the more likely scenario true - that people slowly, through trial and error, learned how to build bigger and better pyramids as time went on?
And why is there nothing left behind? Surely there would be a piece of ancient space technology, or even a mummified corpse.
And even if, even IF, it turns out to be true that an advanced intelligence did help ancient man, then why do you assume it was ETs? Why not technologically advanced Atlanteans or time travellers or some other likely thing?
And do you honestly think that scientists would choose to ignore such a stunning discovery? Sure, you can argue that some might avoid the topic
out of peer pressure, but it still doesn't mean that they can't examine your claim in secret. And why have not any retired scientists, with nothing to lose, come out of the woodwork in support of such fanciful notions? Many scientists DREAM of making the next great discovery. If there was ANY merit to the ancient alien hypothesis, then you can be sure researchers would have been all over it left and right.
And one more thing: why haven't any of these proponents of ancient alien hypothesis managned to publish even just ONE paper in a credible or semi-credible
Your responses are full of straw men and logical fallacies.
You were asked to refute a mathematical reasoning for the great pyramid's concstruction. Instead, you introduce the straw man argument that other pyramids' construction, which do not posess such accuracy, as a deflection to the original question.
You deliberatley ignore, once again, the specific request for debate on the precise nature of the pyramid's layout and instead you claim "astrology is hogwash." Again, straw man.
You also introduce the logical fallacy that just because "reputable scientist looking for the next big dioscovery," have not published such, the whole idea is therefore dismissable.
And lastly, another fallacy which is the other side of your first argument. Proponents have yet to publish in "respectable/reputable" publications, therefore it's dismaissable in it's entirety.
Your debate skills and grasps of logic need some work. In an effort to keep you on track and to facilitate the debate, I'll ask for a concise rebuttal to OP's claim from you. Please refrain from calling names and deflecting by way of obfuscation.
All I ask is you present your belief/theory in as a concise manner as the OP. Please include verifiable facts, i.e. math, geometry, etc. Things that can be proven in this modern age.