> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> > Scholar Twit Femano wrote:
> > > But go ahead and
> > > conveniently ignore all those other
> > >
> 31277,1133064#msg-1133064]contradictions and
> > >
> > > Then perhaps you can explain how he can
> > > from Tura and head to Akhet-Khufu on one day,
> > > then on the very next day, depart from Tura on
> > > way to Akhet-Khufu again.
> > Because he just didn't write it down.
> Didn't write [i]what[/i] down?
Doctor 'LowIQ' in action, for in the next two sentences you point it out yourself. A fact you've also pointed out before. YOU are the one questioning the missing record, and are making ludicrous conclusions, like, 'my god, how is this possible?!?' We are afraid of what your explanation might be: If it was so impossible, then what circumstance is required to make it seem possible, according to you? Alien beam transport? An SUV, maybe? And if those are too out there even for you, maybe the record was forged, and the forger made a mistake in the timeline? Why stop at 'How is this possible?!?' and actually try to reason out what the answer might be.
Maybe you should try to check the distance from Tura to Giza. Check how long it would take to sail down the Nile. Maybe he rode back on a camel by land. It is not impossible, Philip, to get from the drop off back to Tura by the afternoon. NOTE: He was NOT a vessel captain, he was an overseer, i.e. not confined to sticking with one vessel, or any vessel. Simply, use common sense. But that's beyond you.
> He clearly wrote
> down that he went from Tura to Akhet-Khufu on 2
> consecutive days. Are you now saying that he went
> all the way from Tura downstream to Akhet-Khufu
> and was able to make it upstream all the way back
> to Tura in one day but forgot to record the return
Yes. Why would/should he record every detail?
> And you think he might have forgotten to write
> down that more farfetched trip, but yet it's
> impossible that he forgot to write down that he
> simply went back to Ro-She Khufu to unload the
> stones after spending the night at Akhet-Khufu?
> Nice scholarly double standard you have there.
Nope. You are confused.
> > Know what else is not recorded?
> > What side he parted his hair on.
> So now you believe that neglecting to report the
> parting of his hair is on par with forgetting to
> report that he's bringing a high tech, top of the
> line cargo ship to help build the king's royal
> tomb which is the greatest achievement in all of
> mankind and absolutely must be completed before
> the king's death?
Yes. It is on par. It is an example. The brevity of a self-evident omission is not in question. Once again, you equate the wrong equation.
> Thanks for the lesson on what you believe it takes
> to be a scholar.
You are welcome. But I doubt you can apply the lesson. Alas.
> > Also, when did he eat, drink?
> > My dear lord, he must have never eaten nor
> > because it's not in there. Nothing about the
> > peoples' specific duties loading stone. What
> > we conclude? AHHA! Merer worked alone and
> > levitated it on board. What about his age? Was
> > 12, 85, what? Ooo, the seriuos implications of
> > all. Was rhe craft he used a canoe or a 150ft
> > freighter? This could seriously challenge the
> > stone carry capacity: a bag of pebbles or 100
> > raw chunk to be cut up at the worksite?
> > Crikey.
> > I could do this 'ommission' thing all week. No
> > need though, as this sort of track invented by
> > is utterly ridiculous, as anyone can plainly
> > A 'Doctor' I wouldn't dare accept a diagnosis
> > from; an art expert I wouldn't dare have
> > the re-entry of a kite; a barking 'hieroglyph'
> > expert kept far away from teaching children
> > dog ran down the road'; a 'translator' who
> > translates translations of translations who
> > be wearing a Dr Hector mask on an Egyptian tour;
> > Scottish priest who should disband his flock
> > before a suicide pact delivers them to eternal
> > grace in the Akhet.
> > Did I [i]omit[/i] anything?
> > Probably ... but maybe a timely algorithmic
> > can figue it out. May Ra bless us with such
> I'm going to just let that stand the way it is for
> all to see.
With your comments included, absolutely. Thanks.