Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It can only be called Motive if you can
> establish
> > that a crime/forgery was committed.
>
> It can only be called a crime if you have
> established motive/intent. You've got it ass
> backwards. Methodology is dependent on
> motive/intent.
>
> > 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.
>
> Does that mean you back off of the statement it
> couldn't be painted after the fact? Because you
> give no reason for saying it couldn't have been,
> you seem to ignore the problem.
>
> > Noone in fact is required to prove that it was
> > NOT.
>
> Correct. Egyptologists are required to prove that
> it IS.
>
> > Noone in their right mind tries to prove a
> > negative. Yet Egyptology is asked to do so on
> a
> > nonstop basis.
>
> Proving a negative is irrelevant. Semantics that
> do not apply here.
> We would not have detectives and a criminal
> justice system if it wasn't necessary to prove a
> "negative".
>
> > 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.
>
> We have already shown that the cartouche is not
> proven to be 'Sneferu' or 'Khufu". There is no
> evidence to show a 'Sneferu' connection other than
> Wilkinson's opinion.
>
> > Shouldn't be hard if your so Passionately
> > dedicated to the notion.
>
> It wasn't hard at all.


Thank you for the opportunity to point something out.

Egyptology's consensus opinions, Wilkinson's opinions and mine do not exist in a vacuum.

Wilkinson's "Early Dynastic Egypt" is the best example of this. Each and every 'opinion' offered is supported by 23 pages (in the soft cover) of bibliography that insurmountably support all said opinions. It's existence has precluded my needing to suggest a reading list to those who wish to learn of this era and the Old Kingdom. I just say buy or borrow this. When Wilkinson offers one(opinion) that is still up for debate he emphasizes that fact.

Lehner's Complete Pyramids is at the very least an excellent source of things to google, wiki, or library research for one'sself.

In fact all the best known Pyramid Authors on everyside of the debates offers up the known opposition to their own ideas within their works Edwards to Mendelssohn, Lehner to Bauval, Stadelmann, Verner, Schoch, Hancock, and on and on. All em include bibliography.

Egyptology is not one or two assumptions holding up a Djed Pillar 0f anomalies.

Not every discussion here has to end up there.


Someone should set up an experiment whereby someone arranges stonework exactly as we find above the KC, and then tries to reproduce the Glyphs.

Do that, document it. I'll eat a photocopy of that document.

Meanwhile I'm going outside to make sure pigs aren't flying.


warwick