[QUOTE="M"thearie]I question their method of debunking the age of the pyramids of Giza, simply because as has been stated their is NO true way of aging these pyramids. [/QUOTE]
Poppycock. Kings lists such as the Turin Papyrus list the kings in good order and are supported by other, similar lists. Add to this the dendrochronological and radiocarbon datings conducted on various artifacts recovered from monuments, including the pyramids of Giza (Lehner 1997), and the dating of them is extremely accurate. Dendrochronology and radiocarbon are absolute dating methods and they compliment cooroborate each other. Thermoluminescence dating of pottery in Dynasty IV contexts (Abdel-Wahab et al 1996) are consistent with the established ages of the pyramids at Giza.
[QUOTE="M"thearie]What we do have is circumstancial but none-the-less intruiging. I'm speaking of the alignment being exact to the alignment of Orions belt. Most egyptologist adhere to an egyptian religion byass which will never accept the older dating of the pyramids despite the fact that Orions belt did not line up
exactly unless you go forther back in time. [/QUOTE]
This is more pseudoscientific poppycock. I could go into depth about why, but you haven't even stated what you mean by "line up" with Orion's Belt, or why this is necessary.
[QUOTE="M"thearie]This contradicts egyptian history and religion so I'm not suprised mainstream egyptologist do not accept it.[/QUOTE]
"Mainstream" is a derisive word used by those that aren't educated in archaeology to refer to the alleged "establishment" that rejects their unsupported speculations.
[quote="M"thearie]Read up on cultures existing around 1500 bc and you can clearly see an immeadiate drop in advanced civilizations. [/QUOTE]
Please. Be specific. There were a lot of cultures in existence around 1500 BCE. There are several reasons for their subsequent collapses. Some even progressed. Random and general statements on the subject have little meaning.
[QUOTE="M"thearie]One of the foremost intelectuals in this area is Graham Hancock. [/QUOTE]
Not even close. Hancock is one of the foremost dumb-asses in the area. His wild speculations and pseudoscientific nonsense are far-reaching and appeal very nicely to the under-educated. Those educated in ancient history and archaeology often laugh at the nut.
[QUOTE="M"thearie]I'm sure many people disagree with him, but we must keep an open mind to all possibilities and not let our own agendas, whether they be religous or scientific, skew our opinions.[/QUOTE]
This is a rhetoric that Hancock and his under-educated followers would like us all to accept, but being of an open mind doesn't include a lack of critical thinking and a casual approach to evidence. Hancock finds appeals to the ancients to be a very effective marketing tool and has sold many pseudoscientific books and hosted many pseudoscientific television programs, lining his pockets quite well. But I've yet to see a single one of his major claims about ancient civilizations hold up. Not a one. He's good at painting himself as an underdog to the 'big, bad establishment of mainstream science,' but he absolutely sucks at providing any evidence. He's the modern day Von Daniken. Both are a joke.
References:
Abdel-Wahab, M.S.; El-Fiki, S.A.; El-Fiki, M.A.; Gomaa, M.; Abdel-Kariem, S.; and El-Faramawy, N. (1996) Annual Dose Measurements and TL-Dating of Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 47(5), 697-700
Lehner, Mark (1997) The Complete Pyramids. Thames and Hudson