Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Martin Stower Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > ...
> > >
> > > 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:
>
> Femano is playing silly games with the quote
> again. The following is not in the post quoted:
>
> > > “If you want to know what I’m saying, try asking me.”
> >
> > Fair enough. What are you trying to say?
>
> That was addressed to Audrey, at the time. It was
> not addressed to you.
>
> I’m not “trying to say” anything. I said
> it, large as life. Try reading it:
>
> http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1099133,1099166#msg-1099166
>
> > It's not clear what it is, specifically, that you
> > are claiming invalidates Audrey's conclusion.
>
> Is that a claim of fact,
> Doctor? Do you know it
> “with certainty”? Or is it merely a report of
> your (real or affected) personal puzzlement?
>
> > For example, Audrey writes that the same name
> > occurs on the north and south wall. If that's
> > true, it contradicts Roth, . . .
>
> So go to source and check it, as I suggested in
> the first place.
>
> M.

I did read your previous post, three times. And other than invoking the question of whether Rowe corresponds to Perring, taking issue with whether Roth proposes a quadrant pattern vs. a bilateral pattern, questioning what is on the east wall, and rendering your own opinion about Audrey's credibility, you haven't cited any specific facts about Roth's thesis that invalidates the logic of Audrey's main conclusion that Roth's thesis is essentially pareidolia, contrived to fit the traditional funerary paradigm, and that invoking changes in work crews and re-assigning the same work crew to different sides is able to accommodate just about any hypothesis and doesn't validate Roth's hypothesis as "fact" that precludes any other possibility. So I had asked if you knew of anything specific about Roth's thesis that invalidates Audrey's perspective of those paint marks.




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09-Apr-17 16:31 by Origyptian.