FFHAuthor said:
There's a great deal of very curious information and a lot of unusual archaeological data
"Unusual" according to whom? Most people don't know enough about archeology to know what unusual data would look like, just as most people don't know enough about geology to know what an unusual rock formation would look like, and most people don't know enough about chainmaille to know what an unusual weave looks like. And just because someone says they're qualified doesn't mean they actually are. So is this data unusual according to people who should know what the data is supposed to look like?
that tends to fall by the wayside when 'mainstream' archaeologists can't explain it
And that answers my question. "Mainstream" archeologists are archeologists who know what they're talking about. The reason that "unusual data" tends to "fall by the wayside" is that most of it has already been dealt with, decades or even centuries ago. "Mainstream" archeologists have done the basic research to know that these issues have already been figured out, and so they don't waste any more time on them.
although they ignore the fact that most experts in Egyptology quietly admit that they've never found an actual mummy dating back to Egypt in the Great pyramid
First, are you saying they never found a mummy in the Great Pyramid, or that they've never found
any mummies dating back to that time period? If it's the former, than it really means nothing as far as the Ancient Aliens thing goes. If you meant that there are no mummies that old in Egypt, then please tell me which experts have made this claim.
They also gloss over the fact that the only record linking the existence of the Great Pyramid to an Egyptian Pharaoh is linked back to a con undertaken by a disreputable British army officer.
Citation, please?
Other than that we can say that the Egyptians built many pyramids, but there is nothing that explains the construction of the pyramids of Giza
If by this you mean "we don't have a piece of paper with step-by-step instructions" then, yeah, you might be right. Of course, paper tends to degrade, so that's not surprising.
However, if you mean that there's absolutely no evidence that the Egyptians built the pyramids, then you're incredibly wrong. We have a clear progression of monuments, from simple mastabas to the true pyramids, showing how Egyptian engineers learned over time and built off of one another's designs. We even have a giant record of one fuck-up (the Bent Pyramid was an attempt at a true pyramid that failed because the angles were wrong). I'm fairly certain we also have pictures of people pulling blocks of stone. And we have cities next to the Great Pyramids where the workers lived (and yes, there is evidence that this was worker housing and not just a nearby town).
the largest and the smallest of the Great pyramids aren't dedicated to any particular pharaoh.
Yes, they were (if by "dedicated to" you mean built for a particular pharaoh). From largest to smallest, the three pyramids were built for Khufu (Cheops), Khafre, and Menkaure.
This is a very simple fact, and very easy to find (it took me less that two minutes of research) and you (or your sources) got it wrong. That's a sign that you aren't nearly as informed as you think you are (and the same goes for your sources). And I'm not going to bother looking into the rest of the claims you talk about, for exactly this reason. You clearly haven't done the most basic research, so there's no reason to assume that any of the 'unusual' things you mention are even slightly out of the ordinary. (And just so we're clear, I don't mean this as any kind of insult)
I will strongly recommend that you check out Bad Archeology [http://www.badarchaeology.com/], especially if you're actually interested in the subject.
EDIT: I just now read your claim about Khufu's signature being a forgery. Bad Archeology has this to say on the subject:
However, claims have been made, notably by Zecharia Sitchin, that the painted marks were forged. In 1983, Sitchin alleged that Vyse and his foreman, J R Hill, crept into the chambers at night and daubed the painted texts. These claims have been effectively debunked and Egyptologists have long accepted the marks as genuine. Nevertheless, although Graham Hancock does not state that the marks were forged by Richard Howard-Vyse, in Fingerprints of the Gods, he refers to ?a certain smell? hanging over Vyse?s testimony and calls the quarry marks ?dubious?. It was necessary for him to remove the attribution of the Great Pyramid to a fourth-dynasty pharaoh if he was to prove that it was built c 10,500 BC, as he attempted in Fingerprints of the Gods. In Keeper of Genesis, published in 1996, he repeats Sitchin?s unfounded claim that the Kh symbol (a circle containing several horizontal lines) is miswritten as a R? symbol (a circle with a dot in the centre), a mistake no ancient Egyptian would have made; photographs clearly show that the claim is false. In 1998, he withdrew the claim, admitting that the evidence demonstrated that the pyramid was built by Khufu c 2500 BC. His current position is now that, although the pyramid dates from the middle of the third millennium BC, its design is eight thousand years older (and he hints that some of the rock-cut parts of the structure may be that old). This is disingenuous stuff indeed!
(Full text can be found here [http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=30] under the heading "Pharaoh's forged signature".)
So it's not that archeologists are ignoring the evidence, it's that they examined it and found it lacking (and then the person who made the claim changed his mind).
