> Audrey Wrote:
> > Martin Stower Wrote:
> > > Yes, it was. No one could get at where the
> > > cartouche is without lifting the covering
> > > out of the pit—and to do that one would have
> > > know that the pit is there in the first place.
> > > Evidence that this was known before 1954?
> > The cartouche, so claimed, was found on the
> > of a covering stone. Covering is not
> > inside the pit, it is on top of it.
> The covering stones sat below ground level, on
> ledges, within the pit. Call it something else if
> you like: it makes no difference to the
> arrangement. To get at where the cartouche is
> took lifting the stone out of whatever it was
> in—and that took knowing that what it was in was
> there in the first place, a point I notice
> you’ve sidestepped. Your evidence that the pit
> was so much as known before 1954?
> So claimed? Are you suggesting that Yoshimura
> forged the cartouche?
> > > Are you now going to tell us that Yoshimura is
> > > Vyse-style forger?
> > Why do you go off on irrelevant tangents?
> You’ve just shown us that it’s absolutely
> relevant. Why do you sidestep requests for
> > > Yes, it does. It undercuts the presumption
> > > is the entire basis of the accusation levelled
> > > Vyse.
> > No it doesn't
> Yes, it does, as evidenced by your hostility to
> accepting the facts of the case.
> > > How many times do we have to explain to you
> > > no one has claimed that the names
> > > reported by Vyse were previously
> unknown? So
> > > fixated are you on this straw man that you
> > > misperceive Warwick and Avry’s quite
> > > point as an example of it.
> The underlining, we may note, was added (without
> notice) by Audrey.
> > I understand Warwick and Avry's lame point, it
> > just doesn't hold water.
> Audrey continues her rant with quotes which have
> nothing to do with the point in question, proving
> (were proof needed) that she has yet to understand
> what it is, let alone answer it.
> The quotes I omit as conspicuously irrelevant.
> > > Which just goes to show that you share the
> > > characteristic.
> > Since you can't give even one piece of evidence
> > that this Khufu built G1, you switch to
> > comments.
> What personal comments? You’ve left out what I
> was talking about and left readers to assume the
> Let’s have it back again
> Avry addressed Femano in these terms: “No matter
> what evidence is given to you, you always
> leapfrog around it.”
> Albeit this was addressed to someone else, Audrey
> chose to respond, in these terms:
> “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.”
> That this is evidence of her own leapfrogging
> escapes her.
> In what way is it not legitimate to criticise
> treatment of evidence, when evidence and the
> treament of evidence is the issue?
> In what way is it legitimate to stigmatise such
> criticism as “personal comments”?
> > Whatever characteristics I have will not
> > evidence that Khufu built G1.
> Your characteristics have everything to do with
> the extremes to which you have gone in denying the
> status of evidence to anything supporting that
> conclusion, up to and including chucking out
> Champollion in favour of Mulertt.
> > Can you stay on subject?
> Can you get on it?
As you already reminded Audrey...Avry and I made significantly different points, yet she rules them both lame.
Because they are both valid points that no one has yet rebutted or even attempted to rebut, but I expect nothing else.
Here's where I sit on this.
I've been studying History..Hell..just about everything..for 65 years. As this pertains to the Old KIngdom(and earlier)Egyptians..I have read books, pamphlets, websites...Viewed endless photos and illustrations. It goes on and on
Here is what I didn't do years ago, never started doing since , and even when I started posting on the internet almost twenty years ago, I still do not do
Warwick reading a A.R.C.E paper, stops. and immediately writes down a point that adds to the conviction that Khufu is the King of the GP.
Warwick flipping through an esoteric website...records a link because it adds to the conviction that Khufu is the King of the GP.
You can't cherry pick your way through this debate..You either WORK at trying to understand all the evidence. Or you disagree with some aspect of it, and play ostrich
I can hear the complaints that I am attempting to speak from authority already..
association on these boards is the broad
misconception that what we do not know is more
significant than what we do know."
Warwick L Nixon, March 8, 2019