Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Vyse' methodology, whether primitive
> sophisticated
> > or just plain all over the place...has no
> bearing
> > on the issue.
>
> It most certainly does. It could otherwise be
> called 'motive'.
>



It can only be called Motive if you can establish that a crime/forgery was committed.



> > The glyphs are found in a spot where they could
> > not have been placed after the fact.
>
> That is not true. If you can crouch down to touch
> it, to photograph it, it is most possible to paint
> "after the fact".
> Why do you come to this conclusion?

I have read the detailed accounts of dozens Experts of every ilk, who have been in there.

I have viewed all the Photos and all the detailed drawings of the Glyphs and their surrounds.

I agree with what the vast majority has decided.

It was not forged.

Noone in fact is required to prove that it was NOT.

Noone in their right mind tries to prove a negative. Yet Egyptology is asked to do so on a nonstop basis.


Even if it could have been forged and was, it still doesn't prove the negative Scott seeks.

That's where the flawed methodology here began.


You wish to believe otherwise, fine.

Find proof for it having possibly been someone other than Sneferu's son and Khafre's father as the builder of the GP.

Shouldn't be hard if your so Passionately dedicated to the notion.

Warwick