> ,,,,Trust me--there are many more than THREE painted
> marks being disputed here. And you know what, even
> if it could be proven conclusively, beyond ANY
> doubt whatsoever that Vyse DID forge just ONE mark
> (while the rest of the marks remained
> questionable), that ONE PROVEN FORGED MARK totally
> poisons the entire well. Even if it has not been
> proven that the other marks are fake, simply
> knowing that Vyse DID FAKE something in those
> chambers would - whether you like it or not, agree
> with it or not - cast doubt upon the other marks
> in the minds of most reasonable thinking people.
> For sure.
Since Perring recorded what are generally believed to be several forms of Khufu's name (ie, which include Khnum-Khfu, etc.), then why make such a big deal about the singularly controversial "Khufu" cartouche, and why would Vyse need to defraud that cartouche when there are several others that were already clearly visible in those rafters. And why do so many people give Vyse the credit for establishing lone cartouche as constituting proof that Khufu built G1 when all those other cartouches were already know to be there?
The distinction I make is that Vyse's is the only true "Kh-u-f-u" cartouche that's been observed up there.
> And I simply do not
> accept the mainstream chronology.
What continues to vex me is the presumption that there was only one person, organization, place, or thing ever to be named Khufu in recorded history. No one has ever addressed the distinct possibility that if there was a human king named Khufu at all in 3rd mill BC Egypt, then perhaps when he was a boy his parents wanted to give him a powerful name, so they saw that pyramid, largest of anything else they've ever seen, and perhaps saw the name, or invoked the concept of "Khnum-Khfu", or perhaps other variants known in that part of the world, and so gave their son that grand namesake. And to ensure that only he would carry that name, that they summarily removed as much of the pre-ex references to that same name as possible from the vicinity of that stone structure.
There are many examples in recorded history of humans named after pre-existing natural and man made objects, animals, other humans, etc. And so what reason do we have to assume that "Khufu" is necessarily any different? The term "Khnum-Khfu" originally could simply be the name given to that stone beast in more ancient times and originally might not have referred to a 3rd millennium BC human at all.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10-Jun-18 16:47 by Origyptian.