Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
. Thanks for allowing me to clarify.


No thank YOU for that clarification. With my apology!.... because I did infer otherwise. My bad!

>
>
>
>
> > 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.

You didn't comment on the point! ....Obfuscation.

It would require at the very least someone to inspect the RC (Campbells) to even be worthy of being considered a legitmate challenger!

Use your claimed scientific brain.... how could it be possible to determine whether that cartouche is fake?

??????????????????????????????????????

especially if "one" has not even seen it other than a photograph on the internet?

Yes maybe chemical analysis might indicate something. However ochre is as old as the earth and surely the AE mixes were not ever .... "Taubmans perfect"... colour matched and mixed?

Maybe SC's upcoming best seller blockbuster movie rights will finally provide conclusive higher standards of proof?

????????????????
>
>
>
>
> > 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.

Yep. That is an interesting mystery!

Cheers