> Martin Stower Wrote:
> > Yes, it was. No one could get at where the
> > cartouche is without lifting the covering block
> > out of the pit—and to do that one would have to
> > know that the pit is there in the first place.
> > Evidence that this was known before 1954?
> The cartouche, so claimed, was found on the side
> of a covering stone. Covering is not
> inside the pit, it is on top of it.
The covering stones sat below ground level, on ledges, within the pit. Call it something else if you like: it makes no difference to the arrangement. To get at where the cartouche is took lifting the stone out of whatever it was in—and that took knowing that what it was in was there in the first place, a point I notice you’ve sidestepped. Your evidence that the pit was so much as known before 1954?
So claimed? Are you suggesting that Yoshimura forged the cartouche?
> > Are you now going to tell us that Yoshimura is a
> > Vyse-style forger?
> Why do you go off on irrelevant tangents?
You’ve just shown us that it’s absolutely relevant. Why do you sidestep requests for evidence?
> > Yes, it does. It undercuts the presumption which
> > is the entire basis of the accusation levelled at
> > Vyse.
> No it doesn't
Yes, it does, as evidenced by your hostility to accepting the facts of the case.
> > How many times do we have to explain to you that
> > no one has claimed that the names (plural)
> > reported by Vyse were previously unknown? So
> > fixated are you on this straw man that you
> > misperceive Warwick and Avry’s quite different
> > point as an example of it.
The underlining, we may note, was added (without notice) by Audrey.
> I understand Warwick and Avry's lame point, it
> just doesn't hold water.
Audrey continues her rant with quotes which have nothing to do with the point in question, proving (were proof needed) that she has yet to understand what it is, let alone answer it.
The quotes I omit as conspicuously irrelevant.
> > Which just goes to show that you share the
> > characteristic.
> Since you can't give even one piece of evidence
> that this Khufu built G1, you switch to personal
What personal comments? You’ve left out what I was talking about and left readers to assume the worst.
Let’s have it back again
Avry addressed Femano in these terms: “No matter what evidence is given to you, you always leapfrog around it.”
Albeit this was addressed to someone else, Audrey chose to respond, in these terms:
“There is no absolutely no evidence to say this Khufu thing built G1. Egyptology tries to use Vyse's cartouche as proof because they have nothing else.”
That this is evidence of her own leapfrogging escapes her.
In what way is it not legitimate to criticise treatment of evidence, when evidence and the treament of evidence is the issue?
In what way is it legitimate to stigmatise such criticism as “personal comments”?
> Whatever characteristics I have will not produce
> evidence that Khufu built G1.
Your characteristics have everything to do with the extremes to which you have gone in denying the status of evidence to anything supporting that conclusion, up to and including chucking out Champollion in favour of Mulertt.
> Can you stay on subject?
Can you get on it?