> Hello Thanos5150 and Scott,
> From Belzoni's account and the fact that it took a naturalist
> (William Clift. Royal College of Surgeons) to identify the
> bones as bovine, then there can only have been a small number
> of bits and pieces of bone.
> What happened to the easily-identifiable-as-not-human skull,
> the knee joints, tail, hooves, vertebrae, etc.?
> Is it really okay to base a hypothesis on the opinion of one
> person (in this case, William Clift)?
And as Belzoni points out he questions this conclusion as more of an assumption based on what was found elsewhere and not necessarily a determination by forensic deduction from the actual remains.
On a side note, I am curious-I responded to your OP with this response:
And got no response. From anyone. Not that you need to respond, but given the question posed by the OP this would seem one of the few reasonable arguments, if not the only one that does not require supposition, to be made against pyramids as tombs. I've brought this up in one form or another numerous times in these ad nauseum pyramids-not-tombs discussions and do not recall ever getting a single response which is weird. People are free to ignore me at their leisure, some would even recommend it, but I am just the messenger of the information which I think is paramount to this topic which is offered free of my own opinions so I am confused as to why it gets no discussion. Oh, well.
Post Edited (12-Mar-15 20:35)