Origyptian wrote:

> DScribr wrote:
>
> > Origyptian wrote:
> >
> > > Merrell wrote:
> > >
> > > > Origyptian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > the
> > > > > claim that it was royal signage created in the 4th
> Dynasty.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The inscription was read as: "The desert workshop of
> Khufu."
> > >
> > > The implication from some in this discussion is that the
> sign
> > > was sanctioned by Khufu, ergo royal signage. The other
> > > implication is that it originated in the 4th Dynasty,
> > > contemporary with the living, breathing man named Khufu,
> which
> > > I consider to be virtually impossible based not only on the
> > > physical evidence but also on Murray's first hand
> reporting.
> >
> >
> > Another unsupported claim you've made here.
> >
> > Plz provide us w/ the physical evidence which supports this
> to
> > be virtually impossible.
>
> I did: top heavy, poor footing, leaning against 2 gneiss
> blocks, evidence of earthquakes every 50 years, sand blasting
> wind storms, a stone that was too hard to be worked in the 4th
> Dynasty...
>
> If you don't consider that to be reasonably damning evidence,
> when we have nothing to discuss. Meanwhile, what's on the side
> of the equation that says it originated in the 4th Dynasty? A
> poorly sketched cartouche? Are you suggesting that no one has
> ever drawn that cartouche since the 4th Dynasty?
>
>
> > Funny how you WON'T accept first-hand reporting from Vyse,
> > Romer, and Houdin.....isn't it?
>
> As someone trained in observation and rational problem solving,
> I take no one's word for granted. If Houdin makes a claim, I
> want to see the evidence that substantiates his claim or else
> his claim remains tentative. Just because someone is well known
> does not automatically imbue that person with additional
> credibility. Every investigator is subject to the same scrutiny
> and they all must back up their claims with credible evidence.
> Where is the evidence that the Khufu Stele has provenance to
> the 4th Dynasty? If there isn't compelling evidence, then the
> claim cannot stand, and it remains merely hypothesis.
>
> Experts even doubted Einstein when he disclosed general
> relativity until physical evidence validated his claims. So why
> shouldn't Vyse, Romer, and Houdin be subject to the same
> standards?
>
> By the way, we don't hear much from Houdin and his ramp
> hypothesis anymore. Why do you think that is?


TOTAL BS, ORI....top to bottom!

YOU imm. accepted Murray's first-hand account, (because it suited your needs) but YOU hold the three I mentioned to COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, and much higher standards.

Add 'selective eye-witness accounts acceptance' to your ever-growing list of weaseling tactics.