Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Not really. The only reason you are taking this
> > tack is to support Origyptian's argument,
>
> That's really too bad you think so. Your vision is
> not clear and may be clouded by your anger. No
> matter how emphatically I deny your assumption,
> you won't believe it, so it's a waste of time to
> try to change your mind.
Translation: Thanos is right.
> I DID NOT cite those papers to contradict his
> family ties. I cited them to show how Egyptology
> has placed him in the 4th dyn.
No, you did not. You cited them contra me, in support of what you took to be Femano’s claim (which actually you misread), concluding triumpantly, “So it WAS Reisner who put this Ankh-haf in the 4th dyn.”
Except that’s not what Doctor Dubius said. He made this precise attribution:
“Also, who determined that Ankh-Kaf was Khufu’s half brother? Let me guess - Reisner.”
My comment was this:
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1092259,1094191#msg-1094191
—and I returned to the point here:
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1092259,1094204#msg-1094204
This is where you chipped in.
Unlike you, I understood what Femano had said and dealt with it. Jánosi, not Reisner: end of the Doctor’s sly little attempt to discredit by association with Reisner’s more speculative claims.
> I DID NOT cherry pick. . . .
Yes, you did. You went looking for things to support (what you took to be) Femano’s narrative, oblivious of the argument contra Reisner in both of the papers you cited.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Not really. The only reason you are taking this
> > tack is to support Origyptian's argument,
>
> That's really too bad you think so. Your vision is
> not clear and may be clouded by your anger. No
> matter how emphatically I deny your assumption,
> you won't believe it, so it's a waste of time to
> try to change your mind.
Translation: Thanos is right.
> I DID NOT cite those papers to contradict his
> family ties. I cited them to show how Egyptology
> has placed him in the 4th dyn.
No, you did not. You cited them contra me, in support of what you took to be Femano’s claim (which actually you misread), concluding triumpantly, “So it WAS Reisner who put this Ankh-haf in the 4th dyn.”
Except that’s not what Doctor Dubius said. He made this precise attribution:
“Also, who determined that Ankh-Kaf was Khufu’s half brother? Let me guess - Reisner.”
My comment was this:
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1092259,1094191#msg-1094191
—and I returned to the point here:
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1092259,1094204#msg-1094204
This is where you chipped in.
Unlike you, I understood what Femano had said and dealt with it. Jánosi, not Reisner: end of the Doctor’s sly little attempt to discredit by association with Reisner’s more speculative claims.
> I DID NOT cherry pick. . . .
Yes, you did. You went looking for things to support (what you took to be) Femano’s narrative, oblivious of the argument contra Reisner in both of the papers you cited.
M.
