Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Warwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > Origyptian Wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you just assuming the answer is in Klemm & Klemm?
> > >
> > >
> > > I am asserting that this book is the most up to
> > > date, thorough and concise work on this subject to date.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Or do you mean if it's not in Klemm, then the
> > > > answer probably isn't known yet?
> > >
> > >
> > > I am asserting that this book is the most up to
> > > date, thorough and concise work on this subject to date
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you specifically site what proof there is
> > > > (e.g., cited by the Klemms) that those blocks are
> > > > truly Tura?
> > >
> > > Can you read?
> > >
> > > I told you about this books months ago.
> > >
> > > You constantly ask question that it can help you with.
> > >
> > > You dispute everything I say
> > >
> > > You want me to tell you what the book says
> > >
> > > If you don't like what I say it says what will you have to do?
> > >
> > > Read the stupid BOOK!!! ( I may have mixed up that sentence)

OK, have it your way, gloves off…


> > Sorry, I'd rather not spend $90 for a used copy of
> > "The Stones Of the Pyramids" (or over
> > $400 new) just to get one simple
> > factoid out of it. But I'll certainly remember how
> > you prefer to receive information when you ask for
> > information from others.
>
>
> Get a Library card
>
> Do you really believe that these questions can be
> resolved by single isolated factoids???

Yes, a single peer-reviewed paper that reports the quantitative analysis of physical properties of the stone such as density, porosity, mineral composition, and fossil content to prove the stone is from Tura would be an excellent factoid that resolves the issue. And so my question was whether Klemm does include such evidence. That's one line item among what surely is a long bibliography in Klemm. No need to make it more complicated than that.


> How you think I prefer to receive information from
> others is frankly no concern of yours.

If you think it’s no concern of mine, then you have no standing to complain about my style of communication.


> You share nothing with nobody
>
> You just protest
>
>
> and you are admittedly lazy in your dedication to research
>
>
> Besides which I bought Scott's book. and all of
> Robert's and Graham's and Schoch's
>
> I've got Alford, Velikovsky, Cayce, Stichin
>
>
> I DO my homework
>
> What is your excuse???
>
>
> Warwick
>
> Warwick

My “excuse” is that unlike you, I don’t take the initiative to brag about how many books I own and I don’t have to keep reminding people how much research I do. Do you have the complete 8 volume set of Maragioglio & Rinaldi, the various Edgars works (including “Gleanings” and the paperbacks), Rutherford, Petrie, Smyth (every edition), The complete IFAO series on Mons Claudianus, Russel’s costly Roman Stone Trade, even Lehner’s 1985 monograph on Hetepheres with his own handwritten notes (complete with “Wish I had seen the proofs!”) that were used by Edwards to keep track of all the typos as he (Edwards) wrote his review of that Hetepheres monograph in which he supports Lehners challenge to Reisner's conclusion about g7000x.

My book collection is expensive and expansive (and in a safe place!). But I won’t expend money or effort on Klemm, unless I have reason to believe it has the information I’m looking for. Meanwile, with all the research you seem to brag about, it sounds like you don’t know if Klemm provides any definitive evidence that the RC gables are indeed Tura.

You obviously haven't read my posts if you think I contribute zero information here. Just because you disagree with my perspective doesn't mean it's empty of content.

Also, I’m sure you remember that Thanos had recommended where to get a copy of Klemm almost a year ago, for you!




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10-Apr-17 20:44 by Origyptian.