> Tell you what, Doc, let’s see you produce
> any bills of lading, records of inspection
> and insurance etc. for goods transported from
> Egypt in 1838.
> And remembering your brilliant pick-and-mix logic
> on expert inspection and valuation, let’s see
> your evidence that the relevant formalities did
> not take place.
You're making my point for me. If there is no bill of lading or document of expert inspection, it only further emphasizes the paucity of evidence surrounding this controversy.
> Then perhaps
> you should shut up about the topic, until
> you’ve done at least minimal research on it. We
> may content ourselves with the remark that their
> presence there renders your “argument”
> entirely null and reveals it as yet another
> example of your ignorance.
Of course, rather than taking the time to post personal attack after attack, it would take so much less effort for you and yours to simply show the evidence, assuming you had evidence to show. Or better yet, ignore my posts altogether.
> If you want to know what’s annoying people, Doc,
> it’s your endless, bogus pretensions to “know
> better” on things you know nothing about—the
> “saga” of a pure ego trip.
Your signature charm once again is duly noted.
Meanwhile, please show us a single citation of any "public viewing" of that stone box outside of the Vyse team. If there is no documentation of such an eyewitness, then it remains a "plausible" scenario, but not a "probable" scenario.
I'm also still waiting for you to cite examples of "smearing" you claim I've done to those early investigators (other than Vyse) so I can address each of them accordingly. For example, do you consider these to be smears?:
- "We even see complete scenarios deemed to be "fact" apparently without requiring any physical evidence at all (Reisner's alleged Hetep-heres I tomb in Saqqara; Stocks' bowdrills and copper tubes to cut granite). Their burden of proof was extremely low by today's standards. I have no doubt that their motives were pure, but their methods were catastrophically faulty. "
"I'm more prone to give Stocks (and by association, Lehner) the benefit of the doubt and simply hold that their motives were pure but their standards of proof are bottom of the barrel."
"I made it perfectly clear that their motives were pure but either their standards were too low (Reisner, Engelbach) or that they were superb at reporting the evidence but that I disagreed with their conclusions (Lehner, Romer, Petrie, the Edgars, Stocks). I never smeared Lehner regarding his association with AERA, Hawass, or Koch. "
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?