On facebook page Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague I have placed one of the representatives of this group of 10 questions:

Sueney: 1) How do you explain that the younger dynasty failed to build the same quality pyramids as the previous dynasty?
Technology and society have changed. The Egyptians could not know how they would look like 3-4 for thousands of years after finishing the buildings. For example Neferirkare or Niuserre's pyramid from 5. dynasties are kept quite well.
S: In 2003, I had the opportunity to walk around Abusir. The pyramid is in very poor condition compared to those in Giza or Dashsur. It is much smaller, and from the descriptions I read on the Internet, it seems that, compared to larger versions, a substantial part of it is only made of limestone and small blocks. Technology and society have certainly changed. In this case, it seems as if the older dynasties built much more precisely and with better quality than their descendants.

S: 2) How do you explain that there is no single pyramid that could be said to have been truly a tomb? (There was no mummy found, and when it was impossible to determine when it was placed in the pyramid.)
It is not true, Evžen Strouhal found in the article: Identification of royal skeletal remains from egyptian pyramids / Eugen Strouhal ... [et al.]. - 6 il. In: Anthropology. - ISSN 0323-1119. - Vol. 39, no. 1 (2001), p. 15-23. In the Raneferef pyramid, remnants of the mummy, which according to the archaeological context belong to 5, were found. dynasty and belongs to the ruler of Raneferef.
S: And how can it be clearly determined that the mummy was placed in the pyramid just after its completion and not several hundred (thousand) years later?

S: 3) What is your view of the work of Professor Robert M. Schoch, who determined the age of the Sphinx into a period of at least 5000 - 10.000 years BC?
Most geologists have a different opinion, e.g.
S: The author of the referenced article tries to oppose the RMS by the fact that the Sphinx was created later and that the perimeter wall was exposed to really heavy rains and tidal waters. (The author agrees with RMS in this.) However, the author's argument seems dishonest to me, because a) it is not logically justified why someone would cut off the surroundings of the future Sphinx and then let it be for several centuries. b) According to the author, the study is performed only visually without solid data or geological measurements.

S: 4) I assume you are familiar with Göbekli Tepe, which was recently officially presented to the public His age is estimated at least 10.000 BC What do you think the impact of this discovery on the understanding of the chronology of Egypt's development? (I just remind you that ZH was trying to oppose the work of RMS and quoted his friend and colleague M. Lehner to declare that there was no civilization at the time of 10.000 BC, no civilization capable of building anything like the Sphinx or the pyramid.)
Göbekli Tepe is especially important for Eastern Turkey, and the project site lists dating around 9000 BC, which I would have believed. This does not mean that Africa was not settled at that time. Mesolithic and neolithic in northeastern Africa but looked different, as a Czech expedition Sabalace in Sudan
S: You avoided answering.

S: 5) The Great Pyramid is said to contain a spelling mistake or, more precisely, that it uses "spelling" that does not correspond to the time of Pharaoh Cheops' reign and is of a younger age. Can you please clarify this?
The card is accessible today and there is no mistake, it is the way of writing the name of Chuf, which is documented by other sources of the Old Kingdom. There was no "spelling" in the Old Kingdom, many different forms of writing the same words and various forms of marks were used. In the building inscriptions of the Old Kingdom, different spelling of Aa1, even in the same buildings, is documented. And also the long and short form of Chufu's name, Chufu and Chnemchufvej.
S: I have no doubt that there are some rules for writing hieroglyphs, and these rules have probably changed over time. In today's languages, we may encounter cases where we have more than one word to describe a single thing, or we use different "unwritten" or otherwise twisted expressions. However, the question is whether this can be understood as a different notation of the name (in addition to the monarch). I read somewhere that the name was a very important social factor in Egypt. Today we can compare it to titles before and after names. It was supposed to have an even deeper meaning for the Egyptians. So changing the name entry or shortening / extending is not a matter of chance - it makes sense - including the possibility that it is someone else.

S: 6) I suppose you know about the German archeologists group that took 2013 in a small sample of the dye around the cartridge. This sample was analyzed. The result of laboratory analysis has shown that the cartridge is from a much younger age. Do you have any further information?
They were not archaeologists, they even claimed they did not damage the cartridge, they just took samples of stones. They can not do it 14C analysis. If the Germans returned them, there was no analysis on them… Many other data from the Old and Middle Kingdom, including the Khufu pyramid, were published here.
S: It is not possible to date the stone, but if I understood the matter correctly, then a dye with organic compounds can. There is also a testimony from Robert Bauval in the article you refer to that German Egyptologists did not damage the cartouche, as it was damaged by someone else between 2004 and 2006, probably under the supervision of Zahi Hawasse (more precisely, he must have known about it).

S: 7) Are you familiar with Orion's theory of engineer Robert Bauval? How do you explain that alignment of the pyramid in Giza and several other temples corresponds to the constellation Orion at 10.ooo BC?
The theory, for example, does not explain the existence of a satellite pyramid in Giza. And many others matters.
S: Unfortunately, I did not find anything constructive in the link you provided. As far as I know, the overall picture comparing Giza and the constellation Orion exists. You can see it, for example, in a documentary by C. Bulterová, which was also broadcast by Czech Television. In the original called Pyramid Code, you can find it on YT. As far as satellite pyramids are concerned, then a) the question is whether they are part of the original concept of the whole platform or whether they were built additionally b) it is also a question of overall scale. Are we sure that around the main stars there are no smaller bodies numerically corresponding to the number and arrangement of satellite pyramids?

S: 8) What do you think of the symbols that were discovered thanks to the Djedi robot behind the so-called Gantenbrink door? (By the way, ZH said on my same question that there is no such thing. At the same time, the photos are freely available on the Djedi project website.)
These are building signs, which are also found on other stone buildings of the Old Kingdom.
S: And why are they just in this part of the hall and not in front of the door? Have equivalent brands been found elsewhere?

S: 9) Only one syllable from the name of Cheops is reported on the inventory. This is the initial syllable "Che" behind the syllable is a break - the star is damaged. There is no sign of a cartouche around the syllable, which is typical of the monarchs' names. Do you know anything closer about that?
You can verify this yourself, the Inventory Story analysis contains this book on page 218-246.
S: Can anyone please help with the translation from French?

S: 10) Do you know the documentary produced by PBS Nova - Riddes of The Sphinx? He was obviously filmed for the BBC and you can also find him on YT. Mark Lehner, among others, tries to prove that the ancient Egyptians used copper tools and primitive hammers for the construction of the Sphynx. What is your opinion?
At that time, Egyptians used arsenic copper, a copper alloy with arsenic, which is harder than pure copper. Probably at that time they already knew bronze and also knew meteoric iron. But they also used stone tools, and stone types harder than limestone. In detail with technologies stone processing Engaged by Denys Stocks Engineer:
S: Not lime processing but diorithium treatment. Meteoric iron could be used, but we are talking about the mass production of iron tools that left no trace.

S: The opinion of an individual does not have to be the opinion of the majority. This is an excerpt from an open discussion with one member from CEFFUK, not an official opinion.