Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Severus Alexander, post: 4216379, member: 84744&quot;]We&#039;ve known about an alternative, much more plausible explanation for the patterns on the stone for a quarter century: <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/gea.3340100203" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/gea.3340100203" rel="nofollow">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/gea.3340100203</a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>These are not good sources.&nbsp; Actually, let me rephrase that: they&#039;re terrible sources! They&#039;re full of sensationalist pseudoscience.&nbsp; Here&#039;s a review of a recent book summarizing the evidence while avoiding sensationalist speculation: <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/550330a" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.nature.com/articles/550330a" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/550330a</a></p><p>You&#039;ll note that one recent piece of evidence described in the review is an actual journal (on papyrus) kept by a pyramid builder, which supports the consensus dating for the pyramids.&nbsp; No surprises here.</p><p><br /></p><p>Consensus science is a lot more reliable than sensationalist television programs.&nbsp; Personally I find it more exciting too... maybe because it has a decent chance of actually being true. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in