> Of Scott and his warmly awaited publication, you
> "Otherwise, if he says "trust me, my experts know
> what they're talking about" I simply take that
> into advisement until I verify."
> Funny how you never seem to say this in respect of
> mainstream Egyptology.
All that means if that you haven't read my posts about mainstream Egyptology. In the very least, I wait until the author has had a chance to actually publish the work in question before criticizing him about it.
> Having not seen the cartouche with your own eyes,
> and by Jon's own admission that, to his knowledge,
> no-one else has analysed the cartouche using his
> preferred methodology - then no-one can yet
> "verify" or challenge his opinion.
> For this reason, I think the matter on both sides
> of this debate ought to rest.
I agree, which is why all the hostile attacks on Scott were ludicrous right from the start. If the mainstream evidence isn't strong enough to stand on its own merit amidst Scott's hypothesis, then resorting to hostile attacks in lieu of additional evidence only emphasizes the weakness of the mainstream position.
And from my perspective, the clear, detailed photos of Chapuis and Dowell give us a far better look at that cartouche than any sweaty, exhausted, elitist visitor to Campbell's Chamber is able to glean with whatever airborne dust and limited lighting might be available to view it up there. For example, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that tourists and researchers who have been up there are able to get anywhere near the detailed, high quality line of sight view that we get from our warm and cozy armchair viewing Dowell's magnificent photography.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 27-Jun-16 19:04 by Origyptian.