Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Martin Stower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > So, you agree with Hassan, but you can’t spell
> > > his name?
> >
> > How does spelling his name have anything
> > whatsoever to do with whether I'm in agreement
> > with his opinion or not?
> > Never mind, we'll move on.
>
> What’s this? Asking a question and then
> deciding you don’t want the answer? This is
> writing, not speech: the thing to do if you
> don’t want an answer is not post the question.
>
> As I’m sure everyone else can see, it’s a
> simple but telling indication that you are not
> familiar with the author or his works.
>
> > > So, let’s have from you chapter and verse on
> > > “Hassam” claiming that the tablet is a modern
> > > fake.
> >
> > Where exactly did he say that the tablet "is a
> > modern fake"?? Or did you say that??
>
> No John, Femano said it:
>
> “The bottom image was identified as a modern
> fake in an earlier discussion. The sphinx is a
> modern style, possibly Victorian, and not at all
> the style of 3rd millennium BC Egypt.”
>
> [grahamhancock.com]
>
> Did you not read before jumping in?
>
> Then, in response to my request for clarification,
> he cited Hassan:
>
> [grahamhancock.com]
>
> If you’re still not up to speed, I doubt I can
> help you.
>
> M.


Jon, he's wrong. I never claimed Hassan said it was a fake. On the contrary, I very clearly represented Hassan by quoting his exact account of the piece which he openly acknowledges is even too advanced to fit 12th Dynasty art, let alone 4th Dynasty and, instead, Hassan states the inscription appears to be "drawn in accordance with modern rules of perspective, of which the Egyptians have always thought to have been ignorant." If Stower wants to arbitrarily conjoin Hassan with "identified as a modern fake in an earlier discussion", that's on him.