> [quoting Origyptian...]
> "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."
"...through virtually every one of my posts..." ...that mention Reisner's report of G7000x, of course. Thanks for allowing me to clarify.
> 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.
I don't dispute that either.
> 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.
I know of no one disputing the authenticity of paint marks other than the singular "Kh-u-f-u" cartouche in Campbell's Chamber. If Scott (or anyone else) disputes the other marks, I stand corrected. Meanwhile, I don't dispute those other paint marks.
> 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.
It's not clear what you mean by "in addition to...". The singular clear Khufu cartouche has been challenged by Scott and others as being "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 agree. Again, as far as I'm aware, the dispute is only about the Khufu cartouche and not any other cartouche.
> I wonder as do other what does Khufu even in
> cartouche mean?
I agree, and I've raised the issue of whether it's possible there is a more ancient meaning of the Khnum- variants that transcend a reference to a single living individual in the 3rd millennium BC.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?