> Corpuscles Wrote:
> > However , when referring to the real world and
> > professionals, the only legitimate challenge
> > "being wrong" that can be or ought be made, is
> > those whom already are fully aware of
> > basis of or level of proof as it currently
> > and ALSO can offer valid better proof of it
> > "wrong" before deeming it worthy of challenge!
> I'm not sure what you mean by "making a
> legitimate challenge of 'being wrong'".
> If you're referring to proving that someone else's
> claim is false, I'm not as interested in proving
> anyone wrong, at least at GHMB. Rather, what
> concerns me is that when someone makes a claim
> that something is true, they must be ready,
> willing, and able to cite proof that validates
> that claim. If they can't present such proof, then
> their claim remains a tentative
> The proof that validates a claim as "fact" must
> already exist before a claim can be stated as
> fact, even if it's never challenged. The proof is
> irrelevant to the challenge. When I challenge a
> claim, it's simply a request to present that
> allegedly pre-existing proof.
> Likewise, it's not logical to state that a claim
> must be accepted as true until someone else can
> prove it is false. Otherwise, making the simple
> claim "the earth was fabricated by intelligent
> beings from another planet" must be accepted
> as true since no one can prove it to be false.
I'm not sure what you mean by "making a legitimate challenge of 'being wrong'".
That is Ok, as similarly, I had to read your reply several times before I gained an understanding.
If you mean, in a inconsequential internet discussion debate, then I agree with you.
I think it has taken over a thousand posts to get even close to what M Stower wanted to "discuss" , argue or supress. That being the challenge to the authenticity of the quarry marks and cartouches in RC's.
I think he means it as it applies to the real world, not just the GHMB fantasy world.
What I meant refers to the real world too, based on this staggering admission:
I do not impugn Reisner; I simply accuse him of applying the lower standards of proof of his day. This is the resounding theme through virtually every one of my posts over the past 2 years.
Vyse was the first to enter the upper Rc's by blasting his way to gain access.
Very soon after he disclosed a find of quarry marks and cartouches.
Many so called fringe or alternative "historians" ( Hancock, Bauval, Schoch , West, Dr Collette etc), have been in Rc's and report contrary to their initial intuition, that marks continuing behind blocks that could not have been made in situ after entry.
For someone to further challenge authenticity then, at the very least, to hold any better standard of proof, then that person ought at least would need to have physically inspected RC's.
(On the internet silly squabbles pictures/conjecture/maybe fantasys.... will do nicely!)
To me ( silly internet poster) the only possibility of fake would be an addition of a single clear Khufu cartouche. ie In addition to what was legitimately found.
That Vyse Hill or Perring could in virtual darkness, hampered insect and blast dust, paint multiple upside down cartouches and general scribble (ALL of it) seems so remote...as to be utterly rediculous.
I wonder as do other what does Khufu even in cartouche mean?
But I am certainly not anticipating that internet warrior "Cladking" god bless his deluded heart, will be the only one to enlighten the world about that.
So for now ... there has been NO , ZERO, ZIP, legitimate challenge made to currently held convention nor do I think chemical analysis of the ochre will or even could shed any valuable light on the subject.
Hope that gives you some more to squabble about!?