Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Which is the final nail in the coffin of your bid
> for credibility (and you’ve hammered it in
> yourself).

It would be a nail in the coffin if it could be proven that any of the orthodox assumptions as I've laid out a million times is correct.

You are simply assuming you are correct and the fact that my argument necessarily has aspects of the assumption of the conclusion is therefore wrong.

Quite the contrary. It should lead not to discounting my theory but running the tests and methodology to prove orthodoxy. Instead Egyptologists just cover their ears and eyes ever more tightly and refuse to see the things they don't want to see and stopping anyone from using modern science.

While my arguments might be "circular" in some sense, I'm not the one so certain of his beliefs in superstition, inertia, ramps, and tombs that he refuses to consider other possibilities. Funny thing is that when everyone agrees on something it's been discovered they were wrong. And in this case we have every single Egyptologist believing in tombs yet not one of them can show any direct evidence.

It's virtually obvious you must be wrong or you could justify your beliefs logically and scientifically.

> Creighton’s cherry-picking has been documented
> by (among others) Thanos5150 and Corpuscles, who
> are not coming from a straight-down-the-line
> “orthodox” perspective. If you put off those
> predisposed to sympathise, then you’re doing
> something wrong (and yes, this probably does apply
> to you as well as Creighton).

I see his cherry picking as clearly as you do I wager. But I also see all the cherry picking.

Ultimately any hypothesis must be compared to the totality of the evidence. From THIS perspective Scott Creighton's hypothesis seems to better explain the evidence than the current paradigm. In other words I believe there is a higher probability of him being generally right than the paradigm. This hardly means I agree with every aspect of his theory nor with his every method but I find the theory superior to the paradigm.

Hell, if he renounced ramps I might start working on his ideas more. ;)