> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> > Oops. Are they all just "necessary fabrications to
> > be able to keep the Egyptological narrative
> > self-consistent"?
> There you go again with the "all". No, not all, so
> you got that wrong once again. 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. Did you bother reading my retraction
> the very next day?
> Reisner did in fact fabricate his
> narrative and presented 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
The problem lies entirely in the words you’ve chosen to use. No one is twisting them. “Fabricate” used as you use it suggests wilful deception:
—and this is the word you used at the outset:
. . . This is the Reisner that totally fabricated the existence of Hetep-heres' tomb in Saqqara where no such tomb has been shown to exist after almost 100 years of searching for it, and some very notable Egyptologists have come out and contradicted Reisner's claim, including Lehner, I.E.S Edwards, and Indiana Hawass (among others). So where does that leave Reisner's credibility?
Learn English before you use it. For all of your numbing pedantry, Lee/Thanos is right: you did say things which most would read as impugning Reisner’s honesty.
> > 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 [my emphasis added],
> 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.
ROTFL! Is this your refutation of the “ad nauseam”?
> Did you take the time today to go through every
> single one of them? I did. . . .
ROTFLMAO! Newsflash: your posts just ain’t that interesting.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05-Jun-16 21:07 by Martin Stower.