> Hi Audrey , associated "alt"sidekicks, and All
> I note both Thanos and M Stower have gone to some
> trouble/effort to educate you (us all) about what
> is known or dervived about the papyri.
Interesting viewpoint that you would think THEY educated me. I read the papers at the time it was discussed some months ago. Neither Thanos or Stower have added anything that is not in the papers.
> What do you think the closer to the truth
> situation is? (SERIOUS ENQUIRY or questions!)
Well if I had more info than just Tallet and Marouard, I might be able to form an opinion. But their papers do not provide enough info. I would like to know the sediment the papyri and jars were found in. Also the condition of the "seal" to the galleries. Were there any signs of the previous visitors?
Did you know that the site was not pristine? Wilkinson was there before 1832, then in the 1950's French pilots were there after which there was an "extensive study" that ended "quickly". It was after this that Marouard & Tallet came along.
I'd find it hard to believe that the previous visitors did not disturb the site and would like to know if they considered what was disturbed, moved around or even destroyed.
> Whilst seeming to deny it above do you think the
> papyri are FAKE?
> If so:
> - Where did the blank papyrus come from how did
> they manufacture it and falsely age it, what
> science evidence have you got for that? None?
> - Who was the hieropglyph & hieratic expert
> Eygptologist familiar with Ankh-haf and
> associated information that could forge it ALL to
> fool all (except you and Ori) and have them 6
> examples displayed in airtight glass in Cairo
> If not:
> - When do you think the authentic papyri was dated
> to? What is the basis of that (you know with your
> science without guesswork) "alt" methods?
I've not said they're fake, so your questions do not apply. Why would you jump to this conclusion?
I don't think they're fake, I think they were written by an Egyptian or a non-Egyptian who knew the language. WHEN they were written, and who the characters really were, is another matter to me. If this upsets you and your team, there's really nothing I can, or wish to do about it.
> - Do you think there was another period in AE when
> there was a ..Ankh-haf .. a Khufu.. and a Sneferu
> all existed in another era?
Yes, I think that's very possible.
> When was that prior to circa 2550 BCE or was it
> after? When exact (higher standards) time range
How would I know, I can't carbon date anything. Why should I guess, because you think I should? Or it could be they lived at 2550 but even so, the point is, there is nothing to say they built the great pyramids. It's all circumstantial.
> - Are you suggesting those original persons
> existed at a different time? If so
> when!!!!!????? (science!, no guesswork or
> low brow standards, please!) ?
Now that's pretty lame corp. I'm a working girl who doesn't have money to travel to Egypt, or pay laboratories, or know how to do a chemistry test or any other test. And if I could, I'd probably be too busy to post here, like the rest of you who also are in no position to conduct your own science. You've noticed Hancock hardly ever posts here, why do you think that is? So my "guess" would be just that, a guess. Now I could form an opinion if I had something to go on, like RCD. But pottery and cartouches are not enough. If that's enough for you fine, but don't expect everyone to jump on your bandwagon.
> Or is it you don't even have a clue, or even
> capable of a guess, and have no other "alt"
> standard than to nay say and expect all
> information to be made publicly available on the
> internet for alt experts and if it isn't it cannot
Why do you people think we should be guessing? And when we don't, you think we "don't even have a clue". Has it occurred to you that we don't like to guess because it doesn't prove anything, because we're not selling a book, or that it's not productive. I don't know for sure, but I'm 'guessing' the real scientific fields do not present their challenges in the way you think WE should. After reading what egyptologists write, it is so refreshing to read Clube & Napier or Firestone, because they don't speak in absolutes except when it comes to test results. They are uninhibited in saying, this MIGHT be what happened. Or this is what I/we BELIEVE. They actually use the word 'believe'.
Clube and Napier spend the first half of THE COSMIC WINTER explaining the suppression of astronomy. Do you think Egyptologists have behaved in a manner nobler than astronomers throughout history? Egyptologists are not above reproach, there is and has been deliberate suppression of evidence. I don't think this fact disturbs scientists nearly as much as the mere thought of it pisses off you mainstreamers.
> How do you call yourself "alt" when you have no
You're not understanding what an alt is, probably because you're not one. An alt does not believe everything historians say. An alt sees fault in their logic and seeks other alternative explanations, be it aliens or power plants or a far longer time frame of man's technical achievements. If you think an alt is crazy, well that's you're prerogative. Someone who believes everything the historians say is a mainstreamer. Clube & Napier are 'alts' in the field of astronomy. They challenge and believe there are alternative explanations, even if those alt explanations have not been found, yet. They present reasons why a geologic uniformity is not possible, and you can bet they're getting tarred and feathered for it. Now I'm not aligning myself with astronomers, I only bring it up to show that there are alts in all fields. It's actually a good thing because science and other fields would not progress without challenges. But if you want everything to stay the same, then don't listen to the alts and stick with the Egyptologists.
Yes, my altness comes from an armchair, libraries and the internet. I happen to have the philosophy that all science knowledge should be freely available to the masses. I call it an elitist attitude when academics behave like their papers, their findings, are only worthy of their comrades. I also disagree with using their findings to make a dollar. Most of their funding comes from organizations, like museums, and private individuals who invest. Museums are in turn, funded by public sources like government, and also private investors. If it's funded with public tax payer money, the work should be available to the public who helped to make it happen. It's a shame that all science papers aren't put on the internet for free, after all the internet is the 'public information highway', it was meant to be a way of exchanging information.
You can belittle those of us who have a passion for learning and for the ancient mysteries by calling us armchair experts, but you are likewise an armchair mainstreamer.