And logic is telling us here that you can not find what king you were talking about when you declared that ‘Egyptologists claim’ that there was “a king ruling for 400 years”.
You are only getting the fame of being a mediocre tap dancer around the fact that your say so got busted.
Your gross ignorance is indeed acknowledged.
This isn’t true in this case because there is nothing of known age.
A specific percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is C4 and it has a known half life (half of it ceases to be C14 in a specific period). By measuring the ratio of of carbon in organic material the age (up to about ten half lifes) can be calculated.
I found volume II of Manetho’s kings list.
http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/manetho.html
You can see just how uncertain any of this is.
The worst inconsistencies are in volume I.
Why do people keep asking me to support Egyptological beliefs? I thgink they are wrong and I have no expertise in their work. I avoid even reading most of it and have no interest in things that don’t impact my theory. The pyramid, Khufu’s Horizon, exists and has evidence and the date it was construct4ed is of relatively little importance to me. The date is unknown and the number used by Egyptologists is a construct.
This is really silly because dendrochronology and other historical contexts show a close match with the ages.
And you continue to pump your ignorance, that is known to be the case when you have perfect conditions, but scientists are aware of why some times C14 dating is not quite correct and one has to take the error bars when dealing with organic matter around the great pyramids.
Here is what the evidence shows: you were 100% percent wrong about your claim that the egyptologists claimed that there was a king ruling for 400 years.
And the ones you are citing there is not an egyptologist but a historian from the third century B.C. and even he does not report about a king ruling for 400 years.
It is clear that that 400 year king is nothing more than an unfounded rumour that is used in an attempt to discredit current researchers, it only ended discrediting what you claimed.
I seriously doubt you are correct about animals not having grammar but I don’t know. Without grammar a “fat woman in yellow approaching with a club” Could be “approaching fat club with yellow woman”. Grammar is an agreed upon usage of words that prevents garbling. In our language every word takes its meaning from context so without grammar every collection of words would be a fine soup.
I would presume every language that expresses any concept more complicated than “flee” employs grammar. Every animal has to communicate at least enough to reproduce and no one will sweet talk a female with gibberish. No doubt some languages are extremely simple but most probably require grammar.
Well this was gibberish, I grant you that. 
What you imagine about Ancient Egyptian is beside the point. It is not a matter of being “known” (by some oddd standard that you have invented to please your own unsupportable beliefs). The many similarities between various languages on the Indian subcontinent and languages in Europe were noted as early as the sixteenth century. By the nineteenth century, scholars such as the Brothers Grimm were noting and categorizing the way that languages changed from generation to generation, giving later linguists a measuring tool by which they could judge the distance in time between two languages. All of the major language families are far older than the Giza pyramids and your refusal to actually pay attention to that point does not render it invalid; it merely demonstrates that your opinions fall into the category of crank beliefs.
So what? Even using 4,765 years as the pyramid age leaves it a couple of thousand years younger that the known age of various language families and far younger than the necessary age for the separation of the Asian, European, African, and American languages.
More irrational nonsense. For your whole invention to work, the “Babel” event cannot have occurred prior to the building of the pyramid. If it occurred earlier, than that, then the pyramid builders could not have recorded their efforts in the way that you claim. Your PT text has to be standard Ancient Egyptian as recorded and translated by the scholars whom you so desperately malign.
If you want to pretend that the pyramid builders wrote their instructions in your magic language, then by your logic, the “Babel” event cannot have occurred sooner than 2750 B.C.E.
If you are willing to allow the “Babel” event to occur earlier, (and thus not interfere with what is actually known about human language), then the pyramid was built after that event and the builders could not have been speaking magic.
Just as with every other actual science about which you have demonstrated ignorance, genuine linguistics demonstrates that your imaginary ability to misread old texts and misinterpret ancient paintings is little more than a desire that you have to imagine that you have stumbled on “knowledge” that no one else in the world has had the ability to see for thousands of years. Madame Blavatsky would be so proud.
Based on what you have posted in this thread, you always side with your odd opinion against science every time.
I do not recall you siding with facts on any occasion in this thread, choosing the absurd on every occasion.
tom, every time I see your name as the last poster in this abomination my heart leaps! Has he finally closed it for excessive silliness? No?
Unlike cladking’s geysers, hope springs eternal. 
If you have no expertise in their work, then your belief in them being wrong is weakly supported opinion, and not science. What did you recently say about people’s opinion and science again?
And despite this lack of expertise you keep claiming it’s obvious that the egyptologists are wrong, and you keep putting forth “facts” to support your assertion of opinion, like the “there’s a king that ruled for 400 years”-tidbit, and appear oblivious to them being blatantly false.
Based on the available evidence you are a person with little expertise in languages, egyptology, relevant geology and chemistry, who had a gut feeling about something you knew next to nothing about and set out trying to prove it. And like any heavily biased “scientist” you have collected lots of scraps you think support it, you ignore or seek to discredit the staggeringly huge body of work that disproves it, and when, time and time again, some part of your rickety structure of support for your theory is shown blatantly false, you completely lack the scientific honesty to consider that if your bias has caused you to assume this bit as true, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, what else could you be assuming that’s as false.
I’m a huge fan of alternative pyramid-building explanations (a particular favourite is the arc-shaped wooden add-ons that turn any stone block into its own roller) but I must admit this geyser theory takes the cake - I mean, it’s clearly not quite as batshit as the “alien antigravity rays” school of pyramidiocy, and yet it somehow has this whole supporting structure of pre-Babel Universal Magic Language and denial of the very existence of ramps that elevates it above such mundane, unproven-yet-possible explanations as wooden arcs or lubricating-sand-with-olive-oil. Love it.
Eh. I considered that a couple of weeks ago, but several posters pointed out that every time cladking posts some of his utter bullshit, another poster with knowledge of the topic that he is abusing provides facts. There is no hope of correcting the woo based beliefs of a True Believer, but the thread is fighting ignorance for a number of other readers.
I don’t care that that idea probably wouldn’t work for the pyramids, I love all the engineering ideas involved.
Why not? Unlike this geyser fantasy crap, that idea (arc-shaped wooden add-ons) seems like a very practical alternative, although proof that it was actually used seems lacking.
Not an engineer but I have my doubts that would scale up to multi tonne stones. Also, they didn’t have the wheel so how the heck do they invent this method without making that jump? It is a wheel actually.
It’s based on solid visceral knowledge. I’ll leave it to someone else to fill in the details I don’t have the qualifications to supply.
Yeah, that’s the big drawback along with scaling issues. It’s not my favourite because I think it’s true, I don’t - it’s my favourite because it’s clever, is all.
Well it is neat in that it takes away the need to build a strong axle as the stone itself takes that role.
Regarding arc-shaped wooden add-ons:
The excuse for not having the leftover parts – just repeating what others have said – is that wood was precious and recycled soon after use. Why keep your obsolete tools around if they can be beaten into plowshares? There are no external ramps in existence now, either, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t used.
A reasonable explanation, but I would feel much more confident if there were wall drawings of such a method in use, and AFAIK, these don’t exist.