Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It can only be called Motive if you can establish
> that a crime/forgery was committed.

It can only be called a crime if you have established motive/intent. You've got it ass backwards. Methodology is dependent on motive/intent.

> I have read the detailed accounts of dozens
> Experts of every ilk, who have been in there.
>
> I have viewed all the Photos and all the detailed
> drawings of the Glyphs and their surrounds.
>
> I agree with what the vast majority has decided.
>
> It was not forged.

Does that mean you back off of the statement it couldn't be painted after the fact? Because you give no reason for saying it couldn't have been, you seem to ignore the problem.

> Noone in fact is required to prove that it was
> NOT.

Correct. Egyptologists are required to prove that it IS.

> Noone in their right mind tries to prove a
> negative. Yet Egyptology is asked to do so on a
> nonstop basis.

Proving a negative is irrelevant. Semantics that do not apply here.
We would not have detectives and a criminal justice system if it wasn't necessary to prove a "negative".

> Even if it could have been forged and was, it
> still doesn't prove the negative Scott seeks.
>
> That's where the flawed methodology here began.
>
>
> You wish to believe otherwise, fine.
>
> Find proof for it having possibly been someone
> other than Sneferu's son and Khafre's father as
> the builder of the GP.

We have already shown that the cartouche is not proven to be 'Sneferu' or 'Khufu". There is no evidence to show a 'Sneferu' connection other than Wilkinson's opinion.

> Shouldn't be hard if your so Passionately
> dedicated to the notion.

It wasn't hard at all.