> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> > You are accusing the Waseda
> > University's Egyptology department that there
> > claim is invalid until you - personally - see
> > method employed.
If it is C14, what is your response?
If it is seriation, what is your response?
We all know you will claim both are invalid conclusions. So, what's the point of us educating you? What's the point of asking Waseda U for yourself if such a query does not appease your (non)sense of validating the claim that the boat and pit are from Khufu's accredited timeframe? You've accepted the pyramids of Giza were not built by the ancient Egyptians before, so there is nothing that will change this perception of your.
I sriously doubt you will say, 'ah, C14, ok then, I now accept the boat and pit are from the mid-3rd millennium BCE, that the cartouche was sealed inside and unavailable to Vyse to plant fraudulently, and that therefore the relieving chamber markings are legitimate, and the Giza pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians of that timeframe'.
And when you don't, the nails in the coffin of your credulity will be sealed for eternity.
> > What comes after that? You'll
> > need to see video to prove the samples weren't
> > tainted or lied about? Of course you will. You
> > have demonstrated time and again you have no
> > intention whatsoever of altering your view. No
> > matter what evidence is given to you,
> > always leapfrog around it.
> What is my "view", Avry?
More games. I am supposed to guess, then you will bog us down with another thousand posts of 'what?' 'me?' 'where?' 'I did not say that' 'that is not my view', then we will ask, "Well what IS your view?", followed by "Oh, I'm just asking questions to fill out a narrative." You are trolling. QED.
> All I did was ask a
> question about methodology that no one seems to be
> able to answer.
It was answered, then you say it hasn't been answered. Trolling.
> > We could show you the pictures of the Khufu
> > cartouche, and still you'll argue its
> > authenticity, or some other ramble-bamble ...
> > as long as you don't have to admit the Giza
> > pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians of
> > the Old Kingdom.
> There's nothing to "admit" other than the obvious
> lack of proof in the midst of so many claiming it
> is fact.
So you're saying saying no matter what evidence is given, you will not change your 'view' (whatever it is).
"Show me the evidence!" he says.
"Here it is!"
"That's not evidence!"
"Why isn't it?"
"Because anything's possible."
"Not when evidence says otherwise."
"What evidence!? Show me the evidence!"
"Here it is!"
> > You are being argumentative for the sake of
> > argumentative, never accepting or focusing on
> > is given when you ask. Your own actions make it
> > impossible to bother with you.
> I'm being no such thing. All I've done is ask one
> simple question about Yoshimura's methodology. Why
> you just couldn't simply have said "I assume it
> was radiocarbon" the very first time I asked is
> anyone's guess.
Had I phrased it that way, you'd still troll out a mountain-top 'Aha!, you only assume'.
> I'll be more careful with what questions I ask you
> from now on. Sorry my simple questions disturb you
> so much.
It's not the questions, Philip, dear lad, it's your trolling mentality that is attached to them, i.e. they are presented in such a way to disregard whatever answer you get, in advance. As for the bigger picture, you really think the few people in your 'court' actively participating in this thread or on this board are actually relevant to my continuing studies? Moreso you, I assume.
ps. How's that email to Waseda coming? Any answer yet?