> Warwick Wrote:
> > ..for those posters who claim to have no
> > is the following a claim or an opinion , both,
> > neither?
> > "....There were no restrictions on where I
> > and I had ample time to examine the hieroglyphs
> > closely, under POWERFUL(caps here mine) lights.
> > Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs
> > set back far into the masonry. No 'forger'
> > possibly have reached in there after the blocks
> > had been set in place - blocks, I should add,
> > weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably
> > interlinked with one another. The only
> > REASONABLE(caps here mine) conclusion is the
> > which orthodox Egyptologists have already long
> > held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine
> > Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on
> > blocks BEFORE(capes here mine) construction
> > began."
> > Warwick
> > PS
> > Provenance will be supplied following replies
> What kind of game are you playing now Warwick.
I thought I was asking a question
> Like this is your classroom and you're going to
> teach the children something.
Your reaction says a lot.
Those are Hancock's
> words. If you have a point, get to it.
> What you quoted was his retraction of what he
> written in FOG. That retraction was then retracted
> in 2011
> Compliments of Creighton's THE GREAT PYRAMIDQuote
I Know. I picked it on purpose because I was confident that people here would be familiar with it.
> It's possible I threw the baby out with the bath
> water with that retraction. Unlike the
> unforgettable quarry marks positioned between the
> blocks, the Khufu cartouche is in plain view and
> could easily have been forged by Vyse.
> I do not insist it was, I just accept that it
> could have been, and that some interesting doubts
> have been raised over its authenticity. I await
> further evidence one way or the other.
I was going to get to the retraction
> I would add that the glyphs that are claimed to be
> inaccessible are of a completely different style
> than the cartouches. And Dune easily solved the
> problem of how to paint in the inaccessible
If you were paying attention to this part of the thread, and my post in particular ie A Question, instead of continuing looking for openings to berate me, simply..
You'd realise that the right or wrong of the statement isn't the point of my question
THE CLAIM: It is Egyptologys. and it is that all the graffiti in question are Khufu's
THE OPINION: It is Graham's (at that point in time). and it is that he accepts the claim
THE POINT: In his previous assessment, he did not accept the claim
In a later assessment he refuted his acceptance
All this is reasonable and professional on his part.
CLAIM: it is Stichin's. the cartouche in question is a forgery
MY OPINION: I have reviewed all the evidence and I do not accept the claim.
Note: I have not claimed anything. as to the 1st question...I accept Egyptology's claim.
again I have not claimed anything.
I think if everyone attempts to approach this issue in this manner, we might avoid a lot of confusion.
I think Audrey needs to look before she leaps.
PS if anyone else found me patronising in this instance, that was not my intent.
I was looking for common terminology to ease the back and forth (how dastardly of me)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11-Feb-17 06:15 by Warwick.