> > > Like us, Vyse and Co. had no way of knowing the age of the
> > iron
> > > pc. (But this doesn't stop some from previously
> > > [incorrectly] a few months ago that Vyse planted the pc.
> > there,
> > > and now are wildly speculating that this pc. was made by
> > > 'VAE' some 1,000's of yrs. prior to the 4th D.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Their assuming it was a 4th D. made pc. was a mistake.
> > That's gibberish..
> > Vyse stated in his journal that the iron plate could only be
> > contemporary with the structure.. I'm sure you believe that.
> > mean if it was a mistake consisting of about 100 words in a
> > published journal it would hardly constitute a slip of the
> > would it. And if it is a "Mistake" how many other "mistakes"
> > did he make?
> > Are you bringing into question the integrity of Vyse's
> > Implying that he could have made such a gargantuan "mistake"
> > Therefore we must assume that if the GP was built during the
> > 4th dynasty then the builders had iron. I'm sure you can get
> > your head around that.
> > Unfortunately... The archaeological record & Egyptology
> > say that the 4th AE did not have iron..
> > >
> It's plain English actually.
> As stated, "Their assuming it was a 4th D. made pc. was a
> mistake." They believed it to be authentic, and wrote it up,
> (and acted) accordingly, (see catchpenny.org for the
> controversy regarding its authenticity that followed, and
> continues.) It's an old argument, and we still can't date the
> pc. so it's all speculations.
I agree with you, they believed that it was authentic because say they discovered it behind two whole layers of core blocks. They wrote it up accordingly.
> This possibility still exists: "The iron pc. could've been
> dropped by a 16th Century worker removing casing stones.")
Vyse wrote that it was impossible for that to have occurred. I guess that was another "mistake".. He wasn't having a good day was he..
> The AE certainly could've built the Pyramids without iron in
> the 4th Dynasty, regardless of your attempts to spin it
> otherwise here.
Don't know what you are talking about. What's that got to do with the circumstances surrounding the discovery of an iron plate?
> 'We' are welcome to assume whatever, and ignore whatever parts
> you care to, (see above)....I'll stick to the facts, thanks
And you are "welcome to" also...
> (We already had this circular 'discussion' some months
> ago....you may recall there were those who claimed loudly that
> Vyse planted that pc.
That remains a possibility.