Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

> I agree. Again, as far as I'm aware, the dispute
> is only about the Khufu cartouche and not any
> other cartouche.

Had you done what I suggested you do some time ago and consult in the original the source of arguments you’ve repeated, you’d know that Sitchin disputed the other “marks”. So did those who relied on him—and if you’d been paying attention (a waste of good sleeping time I know), you’d know that Creighton has them on his agenda also.

Not disputing the other names makes no sense at all. They were reported by the same team, under the same circumstances. On what rational basis are they exempt from suspicion and the others not?

> 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.

Yeah, just like Creighton, your every sub-amateur musing is a breakthrough insight.

M.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Jun-16 00:50 by Martin Stower.