The past is the past right? Well not really, modern Egyptologist's (the one's on all the history documentaries) have one version of history. While the ancient Egyptians have a very different story to tell. While the modern theory is that Egypt was formed in approximately 3200 BCE, the thousands of writings that have been found in Egypt like The List of Kings records a continuous history that spans 36,000 years. Now the established historians say that this is impossible and cite flimsy evidence to support these theory's. For example they carbon date organic material found around the different sites (because you can not date cut stone monuments), all that dose is tell you when it had been used. This is like digging up a 10 year old grave at the Sistine Chapel and dating it, then claiming that is proof that the Chapel must have been built 10 years ago while ignoring the mountain of proof that it is much older.
Now the Egyptian writings are saying that their culture is thousands of years older than the established dates. One of the biggest arguments against this point has been "Where is the supporting evidence, of this older version of human history?". Well the best evidence that has been looked over is the site in southern Turkey named Gobekli Tepe, a site that the earliest carbon dating places the youngest area's of this monument at 12,000 years old. This one site has more than doubled the established time line for human civilization, yet none of the mainstream archaeologist want to even look at what is right in front of them. The Egyptian Solon (written about in Socrates Timaeus and Critias) states that Egypt is a hand me down civilization left over from the fall of Atlantis. Now I ask are the modern archaeologist so arrogant that they claim to know more about ancient Egypt than the Egyptian people of that time?