> They are both conjectured. And all due respect, I
> don't understand your need for this highlight,
> Philip. Reisner made a guess based on what he'd
> found. Why are you suggesting his interpretation
> is a deliberate hoax? Why the need for such a
> hoax? Are you suggesting we should discount all
> Reisner's work because this example supposedly
> makes him a charlatan, as you imply?
> Anyways, your line of expanded discussion is
> merely deflective from the question at hand. I
> brought it up to show that in the reports (not
> just his) we have a massive amount of in situ
> evidence which contextualizes Giza as a funerary
> complex, including the pyramids. qed
I think you didn't understand the post. Ori used the words "pure fabrication" which is not the same as a "hoax". I don't read it as implying a "hoax" or a "charlatan".
As I read it Ori is referring to instances such as this by Professor Strouhal :
A coffin with a mummy in the depository of the British Museum were attributed to King Mycerinus. According to our examination in 1990, the Egyptological dating of the coffin was confirmed by 14C date (range 12th-9th cent. BC), while the mummy was found to be a natural one and as late as from 7th-9th cent. AD.
This isn't a simple matter of - oops, guessed wrong. Being off by 3200 yrs is INCOMPETENCE that would not be tolerated in the business world, someone would be held accountable and probably fired and it should not be tolerated in the academic world. But you chalk it up to an innocent "guess". The question is - just how much of Egyptology is merely "guess".
And what is the "massive amount of in situ evidence" Avry? So far neither you or Pete have discussed individual pieces of evidence, but are only waving the general consensus as fact. You believe intrusive burials to be evidence of original intent, but when we look at each intrusive burial individually, which you two seem unwilling to do, the entire theory falls apart. We (the alts) are bringing up each piece of this mountain, but you two seem to refuse to examine its components, being content with the assumed 'fact' that noted Egyptologists have based their conclusions on solid evidence and not "guesses".
If anyone is deflecting I would say it is you.