So this is what you’ve been up to, while you’ve been so quiet.

Looking at this, we may fairly wonder what input you may have had to Creighton’s chapter on this topic. If you did have such input, you should take it up with him, as he has not acknowledged it.

Certainly we see the birth of a clique consensus.

I’d suggest to those coming, not to bury Audrey, but to praise her, that they go to sources and make sure that she’s actually got it right. Nice to find the forger’s friend John Shae Perring credited with a conscientious and photographically accurate record of the marks, but a serious investigation would at least cross-reference them with the drawings by Rowe.

Let’s run through, very briefly:

“Although worded very poorly, what she's doing is dividing the chambers into quadrants . . .”

Brilliant. Roth’s saying something else entirely becomes a poor wording of Audrey’s idea. Roth is not dividing the chambers into quadrants. There is no significance in her scheme of appearance of the marks east or west of a central division. Roth is merely dividing the chambers into halves, north and south. This by itself should send Audrey back to the drawing board.

“I have not marked which names are in which chamber, that is irrelevant.”

Because Audrey says so? This should be the conclusion of an argument. Where is it?

“The 3 gangs (phyles) present in the chambers (according to egyptologists) : . . .”

Yeah, what do they know? Down with Champollion! Down with Sethe! We want Audrey!

What they could have told her, for one thing, is that the gangs are ˤprw, not z3w (phyles).

“EAST walls have : one illegible something”

Illegible to Audrey means illegible sub specie aeternitatis, apparently. Petrie and Rowe managed, but what did they know? Which brings us to:

“. . . there are no names on the east wall of any chamber . . .”

Wrong.

Different spellings: sorry, but Audrey on the “spelling” of ancient Egyptian names is not to be taken seriously.

“my favorite author c.1863”

Audrey would drag us back to 1863 and further. Why no name⸮—but we already know she can’t give us one:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,279886,280025#msg-280025

As I wrote at the time:

“Your chosen source is a musty old exercise in cramped and fanatical religious apologetics: a crude exercise in the worst kind of anti-scholarly obscurantism. No author is specified, but it seems to be written, if not by John Taylor himself, then by someone of his school: you know, the people who claimed the pyramid was built by Biblical Patriarchs (or somesuch), under Divine Inspiration.”

Those who would chuck out Roth in favour of such stuff as this are welcome to it.

M.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09-Apr-17 13:05 by Martin Stower.