> The cartouche was not sealed inside the boat pit.
The pit wasn't even found until 1987, and opened in 2011. It had rather heavy blocks sealing it shut. The cartouche of Khufu is inside. How you think the cartouche was not sealed inside is bizarre. This is getting to be repetitive for you.
> The boat pit cartouche does not give validity to
> There were already other cartouches found for Vyse
> to copy from. A point you ignore.
In that it is already a waste of time to be arguing any cartouche was faked, here we are trying to explain that Vyse would have to fake every cartouche, not just one. And I don't just mean in the GP; there are tens of thousands of corroborating and contextual hieroglyphs throughout Egypt he'd also have to fake. It makes one wonder if you are even aware of why you are arguing in favor of the forgery. The entirety of it comes from Sitchin, who thinks a race of gods called the Annunaki built the pyramids far, far in antiquity, only to be usurped by the OK AE. Sitchin's back-ass theories have been destroyed for over 30 years. In any event, there is no real need for anyone to provide the point about a sealed cartouche he couldn't possibly have gotten to forging, however, once presented to you and others it does help illustrate the absurdity of the forgery claim. Lastly: Although Khufu's name appeared elsewhere providing Vyse the template from which to copy, this line of reasoning was also invented by Sitchin, whereas he failed to recognize the contextual recognition and spellings would be his undoing. If anyone is doing any ignoring here, Audrey, it is you.
Incidentally, how is it so amazing that when Philip goes to great and blistered ends at asking to see the real evidence of the Khufu cartouche in boat pit #2, the whole 'narrative' of 'your side' suddenly wants to dismiss this evidence as irrelevant? Rather than accept it, you wave your hand at it. How drole.
> > > > No matter what evidence is given to
> > > you
> > > > always leapfrog around it.
> There is no absolutely no evidence to say this
> Khufu thing built G1. Egyptology tries to use
> Vyse's cartouche as proof because they have
> nothing else.
Cut/pasting this all-encompassing 'no evidence' blurb is as old as dinosaur farts. There is evidence, and a ton of it. You feel more comfortable spewing 'no evidence' because it is so facile to pen. So much easier, than say, reflecting on the information given to you.
> > So you're saying saying no matter what evidence
> > given, you will not change your 'view'
> > it is).
> You give no evidence.
(See what I mean?)
> The objective is not to
> change another's "view". The objective is to
> discuss the evidence and assumptions.
And once discussed and presented, doesn't this give rise to someone changing their mind? Or do you prefer everyone just blindly accept what others present with group-around slaps on the back? If you think the latter, you are most seriously engaged at the wrong website.
> If you are
> trying to change someone's mind here, you are
> operating from an egotistical premise and are not
> interested in discussing, only interested in
> converting or browbeating.
Oh so wrong, Audrey. I came in giving fair, dis-entitled info, and whence, met with continuing and incessant conflagration. I honestly doubt you'd be more accepting if we all said it 'really nice'. Please note, I am not willing to being bullied or guilted into being an angel. I see it as I see it. So to take a line from your own tomes of wisdom, I really don't care what you think of me nor my presentations. C'est la vie, Audrey.