> The Real Khufu Cartouche HOAX
Again, I congratulate you on the clear succinct post which you seemed to have replicated on another forum (I have never been a member/subscriber there, UM, but am an occasional reader).
I quote SC from that UM thread
Lee - it is the mainstream position that ALL these cartouches are genuine, 4th dynasty artefacts. Where's the scientific evidence to back up that proposition, that makes the proposition irrefutable? It's incumbent upon the upholders of mainstream Egyptology to present the proof of the authenticity of these cartouches, not for me (or anyone else) to prove they are forgeries.
"... we can reasonably conclude none were put there until at least the 4th Dynasty."
Yes "...at least..." More likely early 19th century AD, imo.
Game over? No - Game on.
As you and others point out but to emphasise the essence of the entire argument is NOT the more famous complete Khufu cartouche in Campbells Chamber but rather the others.
No one at all, not any scholar of AE writing, in 1837 had the capacity to identify the non serekh Horus name of Khufu.
Therefore, even if Col Vyse and colleagues had indeed found some, never to see the light of day, imaginary fantasied "secret cache" of documents as claimed by Alan Alford and repeated in desperation by Scott Creighton, then EVEN IF SO, they could not have had the capacity to read or understand them( and determine their relevance to Khufu or G1) - let alone forge them under candle light upside down and in cracks.
GAME OVER... a long time ago.
As for SC demands of "scientific proof". I believe this is another desperate red herring, as he would need to specify what would be universally accepted as such and ALSO demonstrate he has the capacity to comprehend it. He likely is alluding to RCD of the paint. However as it has been discussed ad nauseum here that such endeavour may not even be possible let alone conclusive of anything at all.
SC is desperately playing the blind deaf and dumb monkey trick to keep his fantasy alive as it is obvious he did not read carefully or consider the content and import of your post.
He is not a legitimate unbiased researcher, he is at best a delusional fantasiser but has all the traits of a deceitful liar for personal gain.