> It does not require career or lifetime study to have
Did I say that it did? Whatever it takes, you lack.
> Recognizing that the walls blown out by Vyse's hench were not
> covered in the graffiti is telling.
Another Sitchin factoid, not true at at all. Like I asked elsewhere, does no one ever use the search facility. Look at recent posts on this very question. Some of the markings were lost at the very first entrance made.
> then you notice the available space in these chambers,....and
> note the script is running off blocks onto other blocks.....
> was period incorrect.....
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Another Sitchin lie, endlessly repeated. It is entirely correct for the period.
> overtly large...
Answered already. Many marks of this genre have been observed at other sites. The Khufu ones are entirely unexceptional in respect of size. There is no built-in limit on the size of Egyptian script, any more than there is for our Roman script.
> and ya....why would you need to scribble Royal cartouche's in
> such obscure locations?
Answered long since. These were the names of work gangs. It had something to do with the organisation of labour; there are plenty of examples of the same system from elsewhere. The royal name was present only incidentally: it was not a formal, commemorative inscription.
All of which shows that in all of your years spouting drivel about this question, you have not given one day of serious study to the topic.
> the one liner smear....
Like this one? A simple search will show how much I have written on this topic on this very board (and I think you know it perfectly well). I gave plenty of consideration to (the late) Alan Alford long ago. Not about to repeat.
Get a clue.