10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory - Scott Creighton

The importance of the written word, especially names and titles, is clear in
this Old Kingdom stela of efermaat, “king’s eldest son,” “overseer of the
works” and vizier to Seneferu, at the Oriental Institute, Chicago. The text
says: “He is one who made his signs in writing that cannot be erased.”
The all-important name (ren) was associated with the furnishings of the tomb
along with the tomb’s owner: the deceased expected to take his treasures with
him to his eternal home. The name, one of the nine aspects of being, or
manifestations of the self… was a magical necessity of existence already
acknowledged in the ontology of Predynastic times as a requisite for eternal
life. …”
Source: http://www.egyptological.com/2012/08/ancient-egyptian-religionpart-7-roots-too-deep-to-dislodge-9777
And so it seems that for the king to enjoy an everlasting Afterlife then his Ba must be
able to find the correct tomb and mummy each and every night—forever. It goes
without saying but the task of locating the correct pyramid tomb would have been
made immeasurably easier for the king’s Ba with the simple inclusion of his name,
inscribed as ”living words” into the stone of the burial chamber itself and/or directly
upon the sarcophagus itself—as was done for the mastaba tombs and sarcophagi of
Khufu’s children.
It stands to reason then, that in the complete absence of such vital ‘identifiers’
inscribed directly upon the sarcophagi or within the ‘burial chambers’ of these
pyramids to assist the king’s Ba in locating his tomb and mummy, we have to give
serious pause for thought and ask whether the early, giant pyramids could have
successfully functioned as effective tombs for the kings of this period for whom they
were supposedly built or whether they might actually have been conceived and built
to serve some other function altogether.
5) Preconceived Unified Plan.
Conventional wisdom asserts that each pyramid of ancient Egypt was designed as a
single entity; a royal funerary complex that gave little consideration to what came
before or would come after. In short, there was no grand, preconceived, unified plan
for any of the main pyramids. To admit or concede that such does exist would drive a
considerable hole in the pyramid tomb theory so it is perfectly understandable why
Egyptology staunchly resists such notions.
However, the evidence of preconceived, unified planning of pyramids is highly
compelling. The three main pyramids at Giza are an example of such. The relative
proportions of these three pyramids can be shown to derive from the layout of the
Orion Belt stars. You can observe this here:
http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/Flash/giza-orion-blueprint/GSF-G2-Reloc.html
What is significant about the above design method of the main Giza pyramids is that
it requires the smallest of the Giza pyramids (the pyramid attributed to Menkaure
otherwise denoted as G3) must be designed first in order that the proportions of the