> The pit wasn't even found until 1987, and opened
> in 2011. It had rather heavy blocks sealing it
> shut. The cartouche of Khufu is inside. How you
> think the cartouche was not sealed inside is
> bizarre. This is getting to be repetitive for you.
The cartouche was supposedly found on the side of one of the covering stones. A covering stone COVERS the pit, it is not INSIDE the pit. If it were INSIDE, it wouldn't be a covering stone would it.
> In that it is already a waste of time to be
> arguing any cartouche was faked, here we
> are trying to explain that Vyse would have to fake
> every cartouche, not just one. And I don't just
> mean in the GP; there are tens of thousands of
> corroborating and contextual hieroglyphs
> throughout Egypt he'd also have to fake.
Why would he have to fake them all? All he needed was to copy one, the right one.
> It makes
> one wonder if you are even aware of why you
> are arguing in favor of the forgery. The entirety
> of it comes from Sitchin, who thinks a race of
> gods called the Annunaki built the pyramids far,
> far in antiquity, only to be usurped by the OK AE.
> Sitchin's back-ass theories have been destroyed
> for over 30 years.
So if you attack Sitchin, you destroy the theory of forgery?
Nope, doesn't work like that.
I've seen some really ass backwards theories, like Yahweh being a volcano. But each is entitled to their own.
> In any event, there is no real
> need for anyone to provide the point about a
> sealed cartouche he couldn't possibly have gotten
> to forging, however, once presented to you and
> others it does help illustrate the absurdity of
> the forgery claim. Lastly: Although Khufu's name
> appeared elsewhere providing Vyse the template
> from which to copy, this line of reasoning was
> also invented by Sitchin, whereas he failed to
> recognize the contextual recognition and spellings
> would be his undoing. If anyone is doing any
> ignoring here, Audrey, it is you.
The "contextual recognition and spellings" had nothing to do with the proclamation that the cartouche for the builder of G1 had been found. It had been declared a "fact" before any "contextual recognition", So obviously "contextual" wasn't necessary to crown the king, they did it without such. The "contextual recognition and spellings" came after the fact in an attempt to reinforce the idea of Khufu being the builder.
> Incidentally, how is it so amazing that when
> Philip goes to great and blistered ends at asking
> to see the real evidence of the Khufu cartouche in
> boat pit #2, the whole 'narrative' of 'your side'
> suddenly wants to dismiss this evidence as
> irrelevant? Rather than accept it, you wave your
> hand at it. How drole.
I don't know who you imagine has dismissed it, or why you imagine they would. I would like to SEE this boat pit cartouche, since I don't believe everything every Egyptologist says. As far as I'm concerned, if I can't see it in this digital age of information, it doesn't exist. Can't hardly discuss something when you don't even know what it looks like.
Apparently you are comfortable believing everything an Egyptologist says. I have no desire to oust you from your comfort zone.
> Cut/pasting this all-encompassing 'no evidence'
> blurb is as old as dinosaur farts. There is
> evidence, and a ton of it.
Almost as old as the fossils posting on this board, with the same old - how dare you question an Egyptologist!
> You feel more
> comfortable spewing 'no evidence' because it is so
> facile to pen. So much easier, than say,
> reflecting on the information given to you.
Was that supposed to be a superior smirk?
> And once discussed and presented, doesn't this
> give rise to someone changing their mind? Or do
> you prefer everyone just blindly accept what
> others present with group-around slaps on the
> back? If you think the latter, you are most
> seriously engaged at the wrong website.
You shouldn't worry about it so much. You won't succeed in changing an alts mind. Why are you trying?
> Oh so wrong, Audrey. I came in giving fair,
> dis-entitled info, and whence, met with continuing
> and incessant conflagration.
Ya right, poooor babie, wait - I have to brush aside a tear.
> I honestly doubt
> you'd be more accepting if we all said it 'really
> nice'. Please note, I am not willing to being
> bullied or guilted into being an angel.
I would never expect you to be an angel or to be nice. I am realistic in my expectations.
> I see it
> as I see it. So to take a line from your own tomes
> of wisdom, I really don't care what you think of
> me nor my presentations. C'est la vie, Audrey.
That's good. You shouldn't be concerned with what I think of you personally. This isn't a popularity contest. I don't have to like you one bit to discuss Egypt.
You try to bring everything down to a personal emotional level. Here's a novel concept : a professional approach to discussing history. Which means, personal feelings are irrelevant.