Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Merrell Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Origyptian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > No document or
> > > artifact from any designer, mason, architect,
> or
> > > public official attesting to the original
> > > construction of any pyramid.
> >
> > Yes, there is, as pointed out
> >
> [url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,10
> 78751,1080063#msg-1080063]here[/url] by
> Dr.Troglodyte,
> citing[url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.ph
> p?1,336040,336097#msg-336097]Tallet, p. 10.[/url]
>
> I don't consider that compelling evidence. The
> comment by Tallet is pure speculation. Greg
> Marouard made it very clear to me that this was
> pure speculation. There is no evidence about the
> volume of stones, the size of stones, the size of
> the workforce, or any specific construction
> project. Tallet even uses the word "probably"
> without substantiating that contention. The
> "Horizon of Khufu" may simply be a reference to a
> project anywhere on the Giza plateau. And
> "construction" does not mean an original project
> to build a pyramid from bedrock. It could far more
> easily be referring to restoration projects, the
> construction of ancillary structures, etc.
>
>
>
> > You
> [url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,10
> 78751,1080143#msg-1080143]objected to this[/url]
> > on the grounds that, in your view, the term
> > "Horizon of Khufu" did not apply to the Great
> > Pyramid.
>
> Well, I said it [i]did not necessarily refer
> to[/i] the Great Pyramid. But yes, I agree with
> that principle. And it's not just my view, your
> own quote of Stadelmann seems to indicate he
> agrees with me (see below).
>
>
>
> > Tallet illustrates the relevant extract from the
> papyrus
> >
> [url=https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir
> /2495/files/2015/02/Crai_13-2_Tallet-libre.pdf]her
> e[/url] (1022-3) with the details of the text
> > including "Horizon of Khufu."
>
> The papyrus was found in the rubble OUTSIDE of the
> galleries. It could have been placed there at any
> time over the past few millennia. This is not
> evidence of the construction of G1 no matter how
> you slice it. Tallet's leap to presumption is a
> bit too grandiose for me (especially in light of
> Marouard's attempt to temper Tallet's zealous
> approach). Sorry, but Tallet's evidence is too
> weak to cross the threshold of veracity.
>
>
>
> > The link between Akhet-Khufu and the GP is
> discussed
> >
> [url=http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf_library/stade
> lmann_pyramiden_80-158.pdf]here[/url] (105-6) by
> > Stadelmann:
> >
> > [quote]Die Pyramidenanlage mit der
> dazugehörigen
> > Stadt und Königsresidenz erhielt den Namen
> > Achet-Chufu, „Horizont des Cheops" , wobei
> wohl
> > an den westlichen Horizont, den Ort des
> > Unterganges des Sonnengottes, gedacht ist, mit
> dem
> > der König sich noch direkt identifizierte.
> >
> > (The pyramid complex, with the city and royal
> > residences, was named after the "horizon of the
> > Cheops", probably the western horizon, the
> place
> > where the sun was dying, with which the king
> was
> > still directly identified.)[/quote]
>
> Yes, that's Stadelmann's interpretation. And he
> openly acknowledges that "Horizon of Khufu" does
> [i][u]not[/u][/i] specifically refer to G1 itself.
> Rather, the term encompasses the entire
> infrastructure up there on the plateau which is
> exactly my point. Any "construction" project going
> on at the "Horizon of Khuf" could be adding
> another layer to the city, new roads to
> accommodate new expansion, restoring older
> buildings, adding a wing onto the home of a new
> official, building a new mastaba, etc. And let's
> be careful about how literally we want to accept
> such translations lest we are led off-road by such
> notions as [i]"the place where the sun was
> dying".[/i]


Once again, this is the huge difference between passing your muster and satisfying the standards of evidence.