It is clear to see that apart from Piazzi Smyth (and possibly Proctor), the dates for the creation of the pyramid are all considerably earlier than modern Egyptologists claim.
This is not due to a lack of science or rigor; On the contrary, the Radio-carbon dating at Giza supports the idea that the Great pyramid was built long before it is currently claimed by Egyptologists.
) came after though still sometime prior to Dynastic times.
What the RCD represents to me are various eras of repair/conversion from works built several hundred if not over thousand years before.
I think the most relevant outcome of the results of the 2 studies is that from the 6th Dynasty and back ALL of the dates are older whether they be 100 or over 1000yrs in some cases.
This alone should thoroughly debunk the "old wood theory", for one, but more importantly provide little doubt accepted chronology is in error.
What gives credence to this idea, amongst a host of other non-RCD related evidence, is that the RC dates for the G1 exterior get progressively older the higher you go dating to as much as 3,900BC.
The idea this has something to do with "old wood" is nonsense.
Its clear orthodox dating is wrong, but I don't think it is that wrong.
You might find this thread interesting Pyramid at Meidum-New Perspective As far as an RCD date of 12,000yrs is concerned, I don't know where this comes from though it is often repeated, but marine detritus is a component of the limestone blocks themselves: Pyramids packed with fossil shells and not something that just washed up there.
"Furthermore, it looks like Manetho "cooked the books," stretching out the history of Egypt as long as he could get away with, by adding years which did not exist, listing kings who shared the throne (co-regencies) as ruling alone, and dynasties as proceeding one after another, when many may have overlapped, especially during the intermediate periods.