Thanks guys, those of you who think my post is worth thinking about. Don't have time to answer individually each post that I'd like too. Have to try and hit all the points in one post here.

Alrightie then, you want to divide the chambers in half north to south, now see if it makes Roth more correct.

Doesn't make a dam bit of difference does it? It still shows she based everything on the north and half of the west wall.

If it is relevant that each name is marked with the chamber it's in then YOU do it, and explain why it matters. I'm not doing all the work for you.

Quote
Stower
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.

Why cross reference them with Rowe? Roth didn't do that. If you think that's necessary then YOU do it.
NOW you talk about going to sources to cross reference. All this time you were spouting pr names and using Roth to authenticate the cartouche, you didn't bother to check the source. You didn't bother to check Roth.

Quote
Stower
“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.”

I don't know what you call that in the UK, but here we call it prejudice. You would probably apply this prejudice to Pizzi Smyth also, and dare to throw out his data because of it? Because a person is religious DOES NOT mean what they say is invalid. Shame on you for discarding points because you don't like the religious beliefs of who said it. I have no tolerance for this prejudice and everyone hear should stand up against it.

Quote
Warwick
Roth may be guilty of overworking the problem, BUT, to suppose that her finite conclusions being wrong has any bearing on how the Vyse cartouche fits into all this is to propose a false dichotomy

"Overworking" is an understatement. It is the orthos who have used Roth as a way to authenticate the cartouche. If you see a "false dichotomy" I assume you are intelligent enough to say where you see it. If not, we can discard your "dichotomy".

You are not understanding the debate. Let's try a mind experiment....
Pretend Vyse never found markings in G1, pretend they don't exist. Set aside your convictions (if possible) and tell us how.... of all the cartouches found on the plateau....anyone would know which one belonged to the builder of G1? HOW could one tell if a particular cartouche was Cheops/Suphis?

Is it not true that in Vyse's time there was, and had been for a very long time, a search for the ones who built the great pyramids? Is it not true that finding the name of the builders would unlock the mysteries of the pyramids? Is it not true that every author from Scaligerie to Vyse, including Wilkinson & Champolliion & Kircher, had sought the answer to the question of who built the pyramids? Was this not a main quest at the time? Isn't it a big key in establishing Egypt's chronology and consequently the chronology for all of the ancient east?

Without this key, without Vyse's "discovery", they would still be searching for the ones who built the pyramids. Is it not this key that set the stage for the understanding of Egypt's history?

And if this key is the wrong key, if it is not in fact the builder of G1, wouldn't they be back to square one, still searching for it? And if the key doesn't fit, then wouldn't ALL their conclusions about the Giza plateau be incorrect since ALL is based on this one key?

Quote
Stower
Should you not have checked this [Audrey's work] without my prompting? Should you be faulting Roth on the strength of it?

Should you not have double checked Roth before accepting the premise?