> That is not "HRaven", Stower. . . .
No, Creighton, it isn’t. Not exactly. Vyse made a stab at suggesting the “HR” ligature which was painted on the beam in Campbell’s Chamber:
So all of your guff about Vyse’s “H” is inapplicable.
Your plonking pronouncements on writing which once you admitted is “almost impossible to read” are laughable.
> Your 'book' is bust, Stower and so is your entire
So you keep saying, on no serious basis.
> And a few further points before I depart this
> discussion, Mr Stower. It rather seems to me that
> your long-awaited tome is still hot on the press
> and already is in need of a serious re-write.
You are ill-placed to comment. On any serious criterion, HOAX is in need of pulping. At least the pulp might be of some use.
> 1) My views with regards to the two cartouches of
> Khufu are no longer how you have presented them in
> your book.
Not our job to second-guess your every change of mind. Views so fickle were obviously ill-founded in the first place.
Where we mention you at all, we cite sources. The views addressed are those documented.
> 2) Roth's paper . . .
Which you are too stupid to follow.
> 3) Daoud digging secret tunnels, finding hidden
> caches of paired quarry marks!! Whose febrile
> imagination did this turd of a strawman come from?
Alford’s first, then your poor imitation. That combined with serious considerations on the requirements a “secret cache” would need to meet to be fit for purpose, discussed at length in the sections following. Not got to them yet? Sounds like you’re just skimming.
By the way, what happened to your idea that Humphries Brewer disguised himself as an Egyptian quarryman? We took that as inspiration also. How we laughed!
> I have said in a number of places that the "secret
> cache" could have been found painted onto some
> blocks in the rubble around the pyramid. . . .
Your saying it makes it so? I don’t think so. Ostraca and papyri are considered as possibilities and rejected for reasons given, which you’d know if you’d read the book and not just skimmed it with hostile intent.
> So - looks like you've a lot to be getting on with
> now in updating your 'book'. Get to it. Chop
Now, here’s a funny thing:
Edited 2019-02-28 to add a missing apostrophe.
Edited 2019-02-28 to change the subject.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 28-Feb-19 15:59 by Martin Stower.