> THE CLAIM: It is Egyptologys. and it is that all
> the graffiti in question are Khufu's
Since Egyptology presents that as a claim of fact, it must be able to stand on its own merit by being armed with validating evidence that precludes other possibilities. But so far in these discussions, no such evidence has been presented and so the claim has not earned that threshold of credibility. As a result, Egyptology's claim cannot stand on its own merit and, therefore, is simply an opinion that does not rule out other possibilities.
> THE OPINION: It is Graham's (at that point in
> time). and it is that he accepts the claim
What is your method (ie, your standard) for drawing the distinction that Egyptology's position is a "CLAIM" while Hancock's is an "OPINION"?
> THE POINT: In his previous assessment, he did not accept the claim
> In a later assessment he refuted his acceptance
"THE POINT" is not clear other than that Egyptology has not changed its opinion while Hancock has changed his opinion. I assume you are not suggesting that an opinion becomes fact just because it doesn't change.
> All this is reasonable and professional on his part.
Do you believe Egyptology has been reasonable and professional on its part in making its claim of fact? If so, please clarify.
> here's another...
> CLAIM: it is Stichin's. the cartouche in question is a forgery
This is a second "claim" presented in your post, along with the first claim regarding Egyptology's perspective of those paint marks. And as was the case for Egyptology's claim, for Sitchin's claim to be considered fact, he, too, is obliged to achieve the same credibility standard, and he has not. Therefore, Sitchin's "claim" is also simply an opinion that does not rule out other possibilities, as is the case with Egyptology's so-called "claim".
> MY OPINION: I have reviewed all the evidence and
> I do not accept the claim.
Which means you agree that Sitchin's claim has not "earned" the threshold of "fact" and cannot stand on its own merit, and so it does not preclude other possibilities. I agree with that approach.
> Note: I have not claimed anything. as to the 1st
> question...I accept Egyptology's claim.
> again I have not claimed anything.
Depends on what you mean by "accept"? You might mean that you simply "prefer" one claim over the other, or you might mean you believe one claim is truly "fact" that can stand on its own merit, in which case you would indeed be making a tacit claim of fact. I have no problem with voicing an opinion of "preference" for one claim over another, but accepting one claim over another as "fact" without either claim having reached the threshold of credibility that precludes other possibilities would be a logical flaw in your comment.
> I think if everyone attempts to approach this
> issue in this manner, we might avoid a lot of confusion.
I disagree because in accepting one claim as fact while rejecting the other despite neither being able to stand on its own merit, you don't seem to be applying a consistent standard of proof that addresses the ambiguity. I don't see how it's possible to avoid confusion when applying what seems to be a double standard. Without being armed with sufficient substantating evidence for either claim to preclude the other as a possibility, your approach appears arbitrary and does not provide any basis for your preference of one claim over the other as "fact". I don't understand how your approach avoids confusion. In fact, I would contend that your approach is why Egyptology is finding itself being placed under such scrutiny these days.
> I think Audrey needs to look before she leaps.
And I think Audrey has hawk eyes.
In my opinion.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11-Feb-17 16:59 by Origyptian.