Hans: How was Goyon and Ginsells builders
> mark explained away?
> SC: Can you explain exactly how these marks found
> outside G1 actually prove (beyond
> reasonable doubt) that the painted marks allegedly
> discovered inside G1 must therefore be
> authentic? How exactly does that work? Or are we
> just assuming that because some of the signs (what
> was it Hermione said) - ah yes - are "comparable
> with" each other then they must all be
> authentic? Really? How so?
then they must all be authentic? Really? How so?
I note you appear to be having great difficulty with the concept. Based on repeated similar questions to poster Merrell, now to Hanslune, and apparently someone called Hermione.
I would be surprised if you do not still have your infamous cited "Art Expert" Jon Snape's email address. Perhaps you could drop him a line and enquire as to how older art works are authenticated or falsified (where there is question of the original artist responsible)? I don't expect you to believe me (I do not have a degree or Masters in Art), but essentially the essence is that;... known (beyond reasonable doubt) authentic artworks are compared to the subject in question.
Similarly in Classical Philology, where authentication and dating of written language is concerned then the whole available body of such language is studied to determine patterns , development over time, etc. I feel sure you ought know this already as you have already presented your amateur views on the orientation of hieratic numerals with or without Ra or day symbol.
You are on record very recently of suggesting that some of the "marks" in the Relieving Chambers ("Vyse Chambers")of G1 are "probably" genuine.
Scott Creighton February 04, 2019 01:01PM
SC: I discussed this in a long, private conversation with Robert in August 2017, so after the youtube link you gave. For the avoidance of doubt, it's my view, and always has been, that there are some marks in these 'Vyse Chambers' that I believe are probably genuine and others that are probably not so. We just have to figure out which is which.
I also note you questions include the word prove or proof. It ought not be lost to any sensible unbiased reader that this is merely weasling words and attempt to place the burden of proof on others to authenticate, when you have completely failed in your challenge to "marks" (hieroglyphics) authenticity to prove anything.
As noted in the OP of this thread the claims of hard evidence on the back cover are not included in the book. Complete absolute , printed in ink, fraud.
Most your so called "evidence" in 'Hoax' is focused on the cartouche of Khufu in Campbells Chamber.
Some discussion or conjecture is made on the other cartouches.
In order that your underlying motive, to discredit the accepted age of G1 or mislead others to assume such, then Vyse and team would have had to forge all of them.
As Merrell provided to you recently, before your harping dummy spit repeated questions:
Seven blocks of masonry with the king’s Horus name, Medjedu (Hr-mDdw)
Ten blocks of masonry with the king’s full name, Khnum-Khuf (Xnmw-xwf)
Two blocks of masonry with the king’s abbreviated name, Khufu (xwfw)
In fact, the spatial arrangement of the graffiti allows us to determine which crews were responsible for specific parts of the relieving chambers as they were being built (ibid: 127). These phyles left us no doubt the great monument they were building was for their king, Khufu. [ancientneareast.org]
Now you know for certain that Vyse and team had no such capacity to forge such in 1837. Nor any reason to highlight the confusion or dispute , the at the time dispute, as to the identity of Khnum - Khuf. Nor the yet to be absolutely confirmed Horus name.
So you therefore to further weasel and delude others you borrow Alan Alford's idea of a secret cache of documents from which they copied such forgeries, without much attention drawn to such inanity, nor explanation of how Vyse and team were able to read and understand such fictitious document anyway and/or a motive go to so much effort and RISK when in their very hands you claim they held an invaluable document describing a major construction project for King Khufu which has never been seen outside of your and Alfords imagination!
So you italicise "all" If any one of those cartouches are genuine then the motive for Vyse disappears as if he could forge them he could read whether they were appropriate inclusions or not and would have no reason to risk discovery. In the last 180 years there has only been a few loons who have gone to print even challenging it. Neither of them experts in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.
You have painted yourself into a corner, and now your only weaselling way out is to allude to a challenge of the authenticity collective extant body of 4thDynasty writings , including boat pits, Goyen, etc etc.
You demand proof, but have given none yourself.
What have you got to say ?