> Oops. Are they all just "necessary fabrications to
> be able to keep the Egyptological narrative
There you go again with the "all". No, not all. Reisner's fabrication of the Dashur tomb of Hetepheres I is simply an example of the catastrophic byproduct of a poor standard of proof. Nowhere do I ever state that Reisner deceived or was part of any conspiracy. Didn't you see my retraction the very next day?
Reisner did fabricate his narrative and present it as fact. Lehner confirms it as does Edwards. There is no other way to frame it. He clearly made it up in order to attempt to reconcile what he observed in G7000x by reflexively applying the traditional timeline and funerary context to those G7000x artifacts.
And he obviously believed his speculation with complete conviction, and that's because he was so heavily invested in the funerary concept that it never even occurred to him that the alabaster box might have been empty. Do you understand that it wasn't even a remote possibility as far as he was concerned? He publicly stated as much.
I have no idea why you are twisting my words into something I never said other than you, too, have been sucked into the maelstrom of that same biased ideology and need to validate your many allegations about my claiming Reisner deceived and conspired when it's very clear I've said no such thing but, rather, exonerated Reisner from such transgressions.
> Again, in conclusion, you make a mountain out of a
> molehill and the fact you bring up Reisner out of
> context ad nauseum as if it some kind of "proof"
> all should be doubted is more of a reflection on
> you than Reisner.
In truth, as a demonstration of my own objectivity, I conducted my own search and was able to determine the following:
My first post at GHMB was in July 2014. My first mention of "Reisner" in any post was a month later in August '14. Since that post almost 2 years ago, I have mentioned Reisner in 118 posts.
I went through every one. Many of them were replies to comments others made about Reisner. Nevertheless, in the vast majority of those 118 posts I clearly mention Reisner within the context of his lower standards of proof which prompted him to state his speculation in factual terms which would not be acceptable by today's standards in the quantitative sciences. In no post do I refer to Reisner engaging in any conspiracy or deception.
In only one post did I go too far and refer to Reisner's G7000x speculation as a hoax (the post you refer to in your current comments). In that single use I neglected to recall that "hoax" not only meant presenting something as fact that was not actually confirmed to be fact, but that the definition went further to mean that what was presented was actually known to be false.
But what you didn't acknowledge is that the very next day, in my next post on the subject, I retracted my use of "hoax" and made it clear that I thought Reisner honestly believed what he presented was indeed fact and, therefore, his narrative should not be construed as a hoax.
And so in 118 posts where I mention Reisner Over the past 2 years, I made a singular error 4 months ago which I immediately corrected the next day.
Neither I nor Reisner are the ones guilty of perpetrating a hoax or deception here.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 08-Jun-16 03:57 by Origyptian.