> There you go again with the "all". No, not all, so
> you got that wrong once again.
I am not claiming this but rather is implied by your very own logic. So once again, no, not "wrong".
> 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?
I saw it but your conspiratorial verbiage never changed despite, yes, you did clarify you later accepted he just "believed his own BS", which to this day still seems at odds with what you actually say despite not "actually saying it".
Remember how I said it would be "incredibly stupid" to suggest the AE did not make any stone vessels in their history which you took to mean, and repeatedly and fraudulently stated as fact, that I called you "incredibly stupid"? And yet you hypocritically expect us to assume anything less of your characterizations of Reisner?
And speaking of retractions, I am almost certain one of your posts said something to the effect Reiser had attempted to "deceive the world" yet I just can't find it for some reason. Oh, well.
> 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.
So we are to categorize "hypothesis" now as "fabrications"? Even now you have carefully chosen your words to portray a very specific image of events which indeed implies willful deception. "He clearly made it up" or did he "speculate"? Regardless, here we are at the crux of your infatuation with Reisner as you "fabricate" that the very reason he "made this up" was to "reconcile", i.e. "make fit", what he saw in G7000x with the "traditional timeline and funerary context". As if he did not make up these "fabrications" there would otherwise be no reason to think these artifacts were either funerary or found in a funerary context. And he did it "reflexively", meaning he was so deluded with the funerary and chronological context he just couldn't see it any other way. This is insane.
These are funerary items and they were found in a cemetery. And as much of how you use Lehner to create this "catastrophic byproduct" nowhere does anyone ever, including Lehner, say that despite Reisner's theoretical original burial at Saqqara that these artifacts are anything but funerary firmly planted within a funerary context. So instead of Reisner's Saqqara hypothesis Lehner instead offers:
He believes that Hetepheres died early in her son's reign, and was buried in this hastily dug shaft, similar in style to 3rd Dynasty tombs. He thinks that a superstructure was begun for the tomb, also in the style of the 3rd Dynasty, but was then abandoned when Khufu's cult was changed and the plan of the eastern field was modified because Khufu's upper temple would have interfered with it. Instead, he built the three small pyramids, referenced as G 1a, b and c. Dr. Lehner then believes that the queen's body was taken from G 7000x and reburied with new funerary equipment inside either G 1a or G 1b.
So no, Reisner did not "make this stuff up" to make it fit into some preconceived notion that it "must" be funerary artifacts in a funerary context from 4th Dynasty chronology as you have made it out to be, he speculated a reason as to why these funerary objects came to be found in the unusual manner they were discovered at this cemetery. No one doubts this is exactly what it is or that it resides in a funerary context, they just disagree over how it got there.
> 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.
"So heavily invested in the funerary concept"? Lol. Considering they are funerary found in a cemetery in which he was the principal archaeologist at the time with a wealth of experience, following in the footsteps of others who had already come before him no less who also found funerary objects in that cemetery among several other AE cemeteries, which there is nothing but this "funerary context"-of course he was "invested" in it. Duh.
His "certainty" there would be a body in the sarcophagus was an expression of his optimism because, for one; it was a sarcophagus, and two; the state in which it was found included a large cache of funerary goods which otherwise would have been robbed ergo if these things were still there the logical expectation is the body would be too. Which he also clearly notes was not.
This is a perfect example of your twisted self-serving bizzaro-logic. You are saying because he was so hypnotized by dogma that he was compelled to fabricate superfluous details to make this find "fit" within a "pre-ordained" funerary context and chronology in lieu of more responsibly, as those who use "modern standards of proof" would, equally consider other "non-funerary" possibilities as for all he knew it could be anything put there at anytime. According to you it was because of his believing "his own BS" he expected to find a body inside a sarcophagus not to mention even think it was a sarcophagus in the first place. So you bring this up ad infinitum for no reason other than to incessantly rail against the machine that because Resiner's speculation about a Saqqara tomb was unfounded therefore this means the whole "funerary context" and "chronology" can and should therefore be challenged. This is bat__ crazy.
And I hate to break it to you, but those same magical "modern standards of proof" you claim Lehner used that Reisner did not still came to the same exact conclusion that the artifacts are still funerary goods belonging to Hetepheres I found in a 4th Dynasty cemetery. All Lehner has done is take exception to Reisner's hypothesis of how they got there not what they are, where they are, or when they are. This is why Reisner's hypothesis not panning out is "meaningless" as it changes literally nothing. Talk about "fabrications".
> And so in 118 posts where I mention Reisner Over
> the past 2 years,...
Sweet Jesus. And I wonder how many of those eye watering 118 times you just brought it up completely out of context as part of your trifecta of intellectual crimes against humanity. Weird.
> Neither I nor Reisner are the ones guilty of
> perpetrating a hoax or deception here.
Yeah, that would be "incredibly stupid" now wouldn't it?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06-Jun-16 02:11 by Thanos5150.