> “Manu: Scott’s mission is to expose all
> those which tie Khufu to G1 as fraud because if
> even one survives his prosecution, the overall
> thesis falls.”
> No--that is incorrect.
Says you—and yet we know you have a pyramid theory to push—at least one—and you’ve invested so much time, money and effort in this: posts, articles, a whole book, a chunk of the preceding book, radio/podcast appearances . . .
> We know via Walter Allen's logbook:
We do not know via Walter Allen’s logbook. So tenuous a connection with the events of 1837 is not on any serious consideration knowledge.
> “Faint marks were repainted, some were new.”
> If we accept these remarks (of Humphries Brewer,
> Allen's great grandfather) as being a true account . . .
Excuse me? You were telling us just now that we “know” x, y and z through Allen’s logbook—and now our accepting them or not is an arbitrary choice? Here, at last, you speak truly.
These are not Brewer’s remarks. They are Allen’s. They are not given as a direct quotation and we do not have them in Humphries Brewer’s hand. What we are asked to believe is that Humphries Brewer (died 1867) said some such thing during his lifetime, which was passed on by oral tradition only until Allen wrote it down in 1954.
There is no explanation in the logbook of how Humphries Brewer is supposed to have come to know that “[f]aint marks were repainted” and “some were new”. Contrary to the spin put on this by Sitchin and others, there is no account in the logbook of Brewer having witnessed an act of forgery. What we have could just as well be a story of Humphries having noticed or surmised (and surmised fallibly) that changes had been made. It’s a consummate exercise in hedging.
Have you given any serious consideration at all to how reliable (or not) are oral traditions? How good (or bad) they are at preserving detail? Of course not.
All of which you have been told.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09-Jun-18 10:57 by Martin Stower.