Resolved: Ancient Astronaut Theory is Bunk

Con has violated the round-breakdown outlined in R1 by posting counter-arguments in R2, the round meant for his prima facie case. As such, he has forfeited the conduct point. Since Con barely provided a prima-facie case of his own last round, the only way for con to have even a shot at winning at this point is for me to re-vamp the round outline. The rest of the debate will go as follows;R3: RebuttalsR4: rebuttals + closing statements**Con will not be allowed to make new arguments in R4. He may use new evidence to support an already existing argument, but new arguments will result in a full forfeit. Tread lightly.________________________________________________________________________________________________=======Obelisk=======Large levers were used to pry the stones free once the bottom had been pounded out to the point where to bottom was only supported by a thin spine. There's no definitive proof that they used large levers, but this isn't exactly a worth-while area of contention. With a thin enough spine, they could very well have just pushed one side of the stone and snapped the block from its spine if they felt so inclined. It would have been easier with levers and we're assuming the Egyptians were smart enough to figure that out.=======Moving the Stone=======These stones where moved +to a ship by the use of wooden sleds. Such sleds have, in fact, been found [1]. "A smaller sledge, made of cedar wood, was excavated south of the pyramid of Senwosret I at Lisht"As we can see, these sleds had intricate grooves and holes made into them allowing for ropes to fasten down whatever odd shaped block they needed to move.=======Cutting Granite=======The problem with copper saws is that they wear down quickly, so pure copper saws most likely never made it to today. However, we have bronze saws (copper + tin), which were strong enough to last the ages. We have evidence of these saws both in glyph form and physically [2]. We know sand was used because these saws didn't have any teeth and where therefore only useful if some other substance was being used to break through the stone -- such as the single most abundant thing in Egypt, sand.Keep in mind that this technique has been proven to work in modern times. =======Construction=======Con admits that he doesn't the theory I outlined in R2. Once again, I highly recommend checking out the video I linked you to (source 12 of last round) to get a visual understanding of this process.Con then asserts that most of the used in building modern pyramids where not found in the ancient world. This is a non-sequitur. I've shown how building the pyramid was possible using only ancient technology. =======Con's Theory=======Con asserts that aliens where responsible. He provides no evidence or even strong reasoning for his assertion. Con is reminded that he carries equal burden of proof and therefore has to prove that it was aliens.=======Conclusion=======Con broke the rules, losing him one point already. His counter arguments have been easily refuted and his prima-facie case is non-existent. Con may post his prima-facie case next round if he so wishes to (this is actually mandatory if he wants to win). At this point, the resolution is affirmed.I look forward to your response. =======Sources=======1. http://hbar.phys.msu.ru... 2. http://www.sawlady.com...