Attempting to shift the burden is pointless. I have no pet theory to propose to you. I am pragmatic and believe that the circumstantial evidence amounts to conjecture.
Not at all. My position is that with nothing more than circumstantial evidence, making a declarative statement as to the nature of the great pyramids is meaningless. The skeptic does not need to prove a theory is incorrect, those that posit a theory must do so. That’s science 101.
I would say that attempting to use logical fallacy and shifting the burden to the skeptic is more trolley like behavior than simple skepticism.
because stealing a several hundred pound rectangular stone makes little sense. If it were a sarcophagus, there would be actual treasure to steal. Further, the ornate lids were middle to late kingdom. Early kingdom lids were much less so. Some were simply plain with internal inscriptions. But you are correct in calling out my assumption. It is only conjecture and should not be used to as fact.
