Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ..for those posters who claim to have no
> opinion.
> >
> > is the following a claim or an opinion , both,
> or
> > neither?
> >
> > "....There were no restrictions on where I
> looked
> > and I had ample time to examine the hieroglyphs
> > closely, under POWERFUL(caps here mine) lights.
>
> > Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs
> > set back far into the masonry. No 'forger'
> could
> > possibly have reached in there after the blocks
> > had been set in place - blocks, I should add,
> that
> > weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably
> > interlinked with one another. The only
> > REASONABLE(caps here mine) conclusion is the
> one
> > which orthodox Egyptologists have already long
> > held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine
> Old
> > Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on
> the
> > blocks BEFORE(capes here mine) construction
> > began."
> >
> > Warwick
> >
> >
> > PS
> >
> > Provenance will be supplied following replies
>
> What kind of game are you playing now Warwick.


I thought I was asking a question




> Like this is your classroom and you're going to
> teach the children something.


Your reaction says a lot.



Those are Hancock's
> words. If you have a point, get to it.



Yes Maam!



>
> What you quoted was his retraction of what he
> written in FOG. That retraction was then retracted
> in 2011
>

Quote
Hancock


I Know. I picked it on purpose because I was confident that people here would be familiar with it.


> It's possible I threw the baby out with the bath
> water with that retraction. Unlike the
> unforgettable quarry marks positioned between the
> blocks, the Khufu cartouche is in plain view and
> could easily have been forged by Vyse.
> I do not insist it was, I just accept that it
> could have been, and that some interesting doubts
> have been raised over its authenticity. I await
> further evidence one way or the other.
>

> Compliments of Creighton's THE GREAT PYRAMID
> HOAX.


I was going to get to the retraction
>
> I would add that the glyphs that are claimed to be
> inaccessible are of a completely different style
> than the cartouches. And Dune easily solved the
> problem of how to paint in the inaccessible
> places.

If you were paying attention to this part of the thread, and my post in particular ie A Question, instead of continuing looking for openings to berate me, simply..

You'd realise that the right or wrong of the statement isn't the point of my question

THE CLAIM: It is Egyptologys. and it is that all the graffiti in question are Khufu's

THE OPINION: It is Graham's (at that point in time). and it is that he accepts the claim

THE POINT: In his previous assessment, he did not accept the claim
In a later assessment he refuted his acceptance

All this is reasonable and professional on his part.

here's another...

CLAIM: it is Stichin's. the cartouche in question is a forgery

MY OPINION: I have reviewed all the evidence and I do not accept the claim.

Note: I have not claimed anything. as to the 1st question...I accept Egyptology's claim.
again I have not claimed anything.


I think if everyone attempts to approach this issue in this manner, we might avoid a lot of confusion.

I think Audrey needs to look before she leaps.


Warwick


PS if anyone else found me patronising in this instance, that was not my intent.

I was looking for common terminology to ease the back and forth (how dastardly of me)


Warwick



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11-Feb-17 06:15 by Warwick.