> Thanks guys, those of you who think my post is
> worth thinking about. Don't have time to answer
> individually each post that I'd like too. Have to
> try and hit all the points in one post here.
> Alrightie then, you want to divide the chambers in
> half north to south, now see if it makes Roth more
> Doesn't make a dam[n] bit of difference does it? It
> still shows she based everything on the north and
> half of the west wall.
Taking out the relevant division and leaving in the wrong one doesn’t entirely help.
You’re not taking full account even of your own incomplete diagram—and it is incomplete. You’ve left out this:
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/search.php? . . .
Noted by Petrie, present in Perring, present in Rowe. Also you’ve left out three of the ˤprw names (based on the Horus name) on the south side of Lady Arbuthnot’s, two of them very definitely in the western half. This in a non-exhaustive survey.
> If it is relevant that each name is marked with
> the chamber it's in then YOU do it, and explain
> why it matters. I'm not doing all the work for
Sorry to be technical, but the fallacy you’ve perpetrated here is substituting an unordered set for an ordered one. It’s for you to show that the order of the data is insignificant and can safely be thrown out.
> Why cross reference them with Rowe? Roth didn't do
> that. . . .
For more information. For a fuller data set. For input in particular from someone who understood what he was looking at—who recognised the characters. Compare with trying to copy Chinese. I know only a very few characters (hànzì) and they fairly jump out at me when I see them in the midst of what is otherwise, well, Chinese.
One would look for this in an example of (what Femano calls) “deeper analysis and scrutiny”.
> If you think that's necessary then YOU do it.
> NOW you talk about going to sources to cross
> reference. All this time you were spouting pr
> names and using Roth to authenticate the
> cartouche, you didn't bother to check the source.
> You didn't bother to check Roth.
I refer you to Roth’s footnote number 26 on page 125:
“Reisner, Mycerinus, plan 12, contains a copy of these texts without any indication of their placement.”
These are the drawings by Rowe. What was that about checking Roth?
> I don't know what you call that in the UK, butQuote
“Your chosen source is a musty old exercise in cramped and fanatical religious apologetics: a crude exercise in the worst kind of anti-scholarly obscurantism. No author is specified, but it seems to be written, if not by John Taylor himself, then by someone of his school: you know, the people who claimed the pyramid was built by Biblical Patriarchs (or
somesuch), under Divine Inspiration.”
> here we call it prejudice. . . .
(Pause to savour the irony of Audrey talking about prejudice, in defence of a bigot.)
> . . . You would probably
> apply this prejudice to Pi[a]zzi Smyth also, and dare
> to throw out his data because of it? Because a
> person is religious DOES NOT mean what they say is
> invalid. Shame on you for discarding points
> because you don't like the religious beliefs of
> who said it. I have no tolerance for this
> prejudice and everyone he[re] should stand up
> against it.
Let’s see if they agree on where the prejudice is.
Warwick I’m sure can speak for himself, so . . .
> Should you not have double checked Roth beforeQuote
Should you not have checked this [the correctness of Audrey’s work (note amended by M. Stower)] without my prompting? Should you be faulting Roth on the strength of it?
> accepting the premise?