> Let me put this to you in a slightly different
> Putting aside the considerable differences that
> exist between your cited examples of the boat pit
> marks and the Goyon marks from those inside the GP
> chambers, . . .
A thoroughly disingenuous opening: twenty-five (25) words on what you are supposedly “putting aside”. Why mention this at all (and then “put it aside”), if not to suggest it to the reader without its being properly discussed and justified?
What “considerable differences”? Have you studied the inscriptions on the covering blocks of the boat pits systematically? Have you looked with particular attention at the examples of the cartouche name “Khufu” from the second pit? There is no sign of it. On the contrary, the attitude you have displayed is that they are unworthy of your attention. Do not be surprised if your pronouncements on the topic are judged accordingly.
Do these “considerable differences” take any of the inscriptions outside the range of variation and family resemblance we find in cursive scripts in general and ancient Egyptian scripts in particular?
Allow me to remind you that you have picked up and repeated entirely uncritically (and even tried to make mileage on the back of) an identification of the script in the pyramid as hieratic. What is the basis of that designation, if not comparison with other inscriptions?
I see more and more a need to distinguish your “secret cache” theory from Alford’s original. Alford at least had a tolerably clear idea of what he was trying to explain and the sense to keep it simple, whereas you make a mess of his comparatively clear-cut proposal by trying to graft onto it some Sitchinesque rubbish about anachronistic characters. Reminder: Alford proposed this in an attempt to explain (away) the undoubtedly authentic characteristics of the inscriptions in the pyramid.
> . . . just because two sources of text are
> “comparable” in certain ways does not and
> should not imply that any of the sources are
A dogmatic assertion for which no argument has been offered and a misrepresentation of the case.
> They might be, they might not be.
> And assuming your two cited examples of marks
> (boat pits & Goyon) are genuine, how does
> the fact that some of the signs in these genuine
> examples being "comparable with" some of those
> signs in G1 mean that those in G1 must also be
> genuine? How exactly?
This is your argument? That the cited examples “might be” forgeries also?
Please provide something to show that this is a real possibilty. Tell us how you imagine that the inscriptions in the boat pits “might have” been forged, and who you imagine “might have” forged them.
These things were reported by entirely different investigators (Goyon and Grinsell included), many years after Vyse died—or are we now going to hear from you that this was a conspiracy spanning many generations and many nationalities?
And you can stop playing silly games with modality. No one but you has said “must be”.
> If you were offered to choose from two £20 notes
> but told that one of them was fake, wouldn’t you
> want to have some means of determining which was
> which? They are “comparable with” each other
> in many ways (because it’s a well done fake
> note). But just because they are comparable does
> not and should not automatically mean they are
> both genuine. If we were to decide matters on such
> a basis then if you had a genuine £20 note and a
> fake £20 then, by your standards, just because
> the two are "comparable with" each other then they
> must both be genuine. Which is a plainly absurd
You’ve never understood that argument by analogy is no argument at all, have you, Creighton? Choose a different analogy and you get a different result. Consider the art world: experts assign paintings to named artists on a basis of their having characteristics in common with other, known works. The present case is closer to that. Resorting to argument by analogy while dismissing comparison of inscriptions as a method is just plain incoherent.
Edited 2019-02-01 to insert a missing indefinite article.
Edited 2019-02-02 to correct one word.
Edited 2019-02-02 to insert another missing indefinite article.
Edited 2019-02-03 to add three words.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03-Feb-19 23:15 by Martin Stower.