Corpuscles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Audrey
>
>
> Audrey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thanks guys, those of you who think my post is
> > worth thinking about.
>
> Please let me also offer my belated praise, 'join
> the chorus', of appreciation for at least
> demonstrating considerable thought and effort,
> even though it is from a critical standpoint. You
> know I have offered such (albeit likely worthless)
> in the past.
>
>
> >

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".
>


Roth being wrong does not make Vyse wrong


> I also have some difficulty in reaching consensus
> with Roth's hypothesis regarding the meaning of
> the distribution of the hieratic (or if you prefer
> cursive hieroglyphs) in the chambers. She might be
> dead wrong, but at least she looks at what is
> there and tries to figure a rationale for it and
> it's significance. Rather than trying to
> speculate about what is not there!
>
> Her work is as far as I know hasn't specifically
> been used directly "as a way to authenticate
> the cartouche". I suspect you mean the
> famous CC one.
>
> >
> > You are not understanding the debate. Let's try
> a
> > mind experiment....
>
> I realise this was addressed to Warwick ,



It was?? I understand the debate perfectly.

She is saying that if Roth is wrong about her finite conclusions then she is also wrong in concluding that they are quarry marks/crew names in the first place.

Which is nonsense


excuse
> me for interjecting when time permits. It seems
> this thread is still mainly all about justifying
> grand forgery on a major scale?
>
> > 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?
>
> Audrey, I am aware this has been answered several
> times before directly to your questions.
>


> Do you think somehow that as of 1837 the Khufu
> cartouche was not known?
> If so, i.e. not known, how could Vyse
> possibly forge it?
>
> Does "Rosellini's 'I monumenti dell'Egitto e della
> Nubia' vol. 1 (1832)" ring any bells?
>
> However, does not mean, of itself, he built G1, or
> does it?
>
>
> >
> > 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?
>
> True, they wanted to know who built them. However,
> these "alts" you talk of, seem obsessed with the
> notion that the CC cartouche is the main and
> seemingly only identifier. It definitely is not
> the sole "key establishing Egypt's chronology
> ..."
>
> >
> > 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?
>
>
> Serious question please consider (and answer) for
> your own benefit:
>
> Do you dispute all the links found between a
> family dynasty of kings queens relations of
> Sneferu, Khufu, (Djedefre), Khafre, Menkaure?
>
> Do you dispute that later AE' people wrote and
> considered great pyramids to belong to that
> dynasty?
> Whether they forged the inscriptions on statues
> etc or NOT is there evidence later dynastic AE
> thought they built them?
>
> If so, then how much did Vyse know about that in
> 1837?
>
>
>
>
> >
> > 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?
>
> Depending on your answers above, you "alts" might
> hope so, but regardless of that definitely
> NO!
>
>
> Some more questions that might help in the
> underlying point of your thread.
>
> Why would Vyse concoct many many forgeries (has to
> be all of the legible hieratic)in such a
> way that which opens up to the intriguing
> speculation about the meaning of the distribution
> of such which Roth attempts to resolve with her
> hypothesis?
>
> How could the A Alford now claimed by SC as his
> original guess 'at finding secret documents, talk
> of such distribution of such names! Didn't it have
> a story or some other juicy stuff to copy? Why
> didn't Vyse &Co think such all ought have for his
> purpose the more recognisable (at the time) Khufu
> cartouche or modify them to be so, if tht was his
> sole intent?
>
> Finally, how did he possibly know the Horus name
> could be written outside of a serekh, and/or
> otherwise not inclosed, in a cartouche? If in a
> "secret document" then how did he read it?
>
> Cheers


He either knew too much or not enough.

Considering the normal state of affairs here, I'm shocked that so many think the former, when they constantly accuse literally 1000's of academics of not knowing enough.


Warwick