MS: You’re the one selectively forgetting it, Scott: your conclusion merely reiterates the presuppositions you’ve imposed on the evidence.

SC: No. I see the extant evidence..

MS: . . . through the prism of your presuppositions.

SC: Even if this were true I am doing no different to what ortho folks do all the time.

MS: The derisive label confirming (what was evident anyway), ...[/quote]

SC: The conditional “derisive label”.

Quote

MS: ...that you are operating from a position of prejudice . . .

SC: I disagree. I am merely seeking to get to the truth of why the inscription in Campbell's Chamber is different to that observed on the Abydos King List which mainstream opinion asserts are the same individual. Thus far I have not received a convincing explanation that affirms this opinion . What is so wrong with seeking the truth? Is this only a problem for you because I do not find your particular explanation tenable? If this is so then one must question where the REAL prejudice lies.

Quote

SC Consensus opinion presupposes Seti would have had the Abydos King List relief painted and this presupposition is based on the evidence from other temples.

MS: Scott. We are being very patient with you.

SC: Whilst your patience is appreciated I would much rather appreciate a convincing argument from you.

Quote

MS: You were shown a relief from Abydos . . .

[commons.wikimedia.org]

If you can’t see the identity in style, you should (and this is the polite version) shut up about this now:

[commons.wikimedia.org]

SC: Trust me – in the pursuit of a satisfactory answer to this question, I am not about to “shut up” any time soon. In spite of the various band-aids that has been applied to the question, I remain unconvinced.

Quote

SC: It never occurs to them that Seti simply might simply have wished to stamp his own artistic ideas on the Abydos King List – he might not have wished to “tarnish” the names of his God forebears thereby explaining the complete lack of paint in this part of the temple.

Presuppositions are made by the ortho folks all the time.

MS: . . . and questioned by them.

SC: Well they don't seem to question nearly as much as I do, now do they?

MS: Claiming to see things “objectively” while everyone else is “biased” is a typical trait of the dogmatist and the crank.

SC: I’ve often thought that about the ortho folks!

. . . while showing with every other word that it applies to yourself.

(Including the word ‘ortho’, comment as above.)[/quote]

SC: I think the problem here, Martin, is that you simply want me to take you on your word that this question has been resolved. Sorry - not without convincing evidence and you haven't even come close yet to presenting such.

Quote

MS: Truth is, Scott, recognising one’s presuppositions and looking at them critically is the first step towards letting the “evidence” make the blindest of difference.

You’ve made yours immune to refutation by refusing to see even that you have them.

SC: More babble-twaddle from the pen of Mr Stower. [. . .]

MS: This exemplifying your nuanced understanding of the issue.

SC: Contrary to what you may think, I understand the issue perfectly. The inscription in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid that Egyptologists assure us is “Khufu” is NOT the same inscription for “Khufu” given in the Abydos King's List.

Quote

[handwaving snipped]

SC: SC: This wasn't about “handwaving”. Moreover, it concerns your accusation that I do not conduct reasoned argument to which I responded.

Quote

SC: Reasoned argument? If my questioning of mainstream opinion or of demanding proof of claims that bring about such opinion is regarded by you as not being “reasoned argument” then one can but wonder where you stand in the reasoned argument poll if you so readily accept such opinion without a trace of hard evidence to support it.

Reasoned argument can be made when reasonable evidence is presented. You have thus far failed to present such and one can only conclude from this that you expect me (and everyone else) to simply take you on your word. That is not reasoned argument.

Quote

SC: I could well be wrong here – I will check. If so then I will revoke. So, tell us all then – what IS your position on the paint argument?

MS: I don’t have one: I’m in motion.

SC: Which means precisely what?

Quote

SC: The burden of proof then is on YOU and Greg to prove this was so.

MS: Oh. I see. Your position is the default. Everything else must be “proven”. Consider your example of a relief which still bears some traces of paint. What makes you think there was ever any more? Why not the principle you apply to the List relief: no paint now, no paint ever?

You accept in this case that there was once paint where there is none now. So what removed it? What would have happen if that same agency acted for longer, or more intensely?

Do tell us.

SC: If I walked into a room and found a completely white wall on one side and the wall opposite was coloured red with a few pockets of white still showing through it is reasonable to take the view that both walls were once white and that some red paint has flaked off one of the walls revealing its original, unpainted state.

MS: Which is no answer to the question asked.

SC: In what way?

Quote

MS: This just to show your nonexistent grasp of a basic principle of rationality: parity of reasoning.

Or, to put it simply, your double standard.

SC: There’s no double-standard from me. It is your singular refusal to accept the very simple suggestion that Seti might not have wished the wall of his ancestors “tarnished” by paint.

MS: Scott. I’ve explained this to you before. There is no obligation on me (or anyone else) to accept your personal fantasies about how the ancient Egyptians did things.

SC: You do a lot of typing but you have explained precisely nothing. And nor do I have to blindly accept the wholly unconvincing consensus opinion that the inscription of “Khufu” in Campbell's Chamber is the same inscription of “Khufu” in the Abydos King List when it is clear to anyone with eyes that they are different and that they were never painted. Not without convincing evidence. If my asking for convincing evidence from you to prove your case is now considered by you as some kind of “fantasy” of mine, one can only wonder what fantasies are going on in your head.

Quote

SC: And Pharaohs are known to have expressed their personal preferences. This may simply be another example of such personal expression on Seti’s part.

MS: As may also be the orthography. Your self-contradiction here is so glaring that even you should see it.

SC: There's no contradiction here. It is inconceivable that Seti would ever have allowed the alleged “Khufu” inscription in the King List to remain so ambiguous, sitting as it does alongside inscriptions that clearly bear the solar disc. This would lead to confusion and Seti and his scribes would have known that. They would have done something about it. They didn't. We have to assume then that the extant inscription is the finished article.

Quote

SC: Let’s have your EVIDENCE that PROVES, unequivocally, the King’s List relief at Abydos once was painted and that all its paint fell off.

MS: Let’s have your evidence which “proves” unequivocally that it didn’t.

SC: I am not about to prove a negative. [. . .]
MS: Why not, Scott? You’re the one claiming the unusual.

SC: Martin – prove the positive. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that the King's List at Abydos was painted and that all its paint subsequently fell off. You can try and twist this around all you like – it won't work. Give us all your evidence. We're waiting.

Quote

MS: You’re the one claiming that (here and here only) Seti did it differently,

SC: I think it is pretty clear Seti did thing differently. There's not a spec of paint on the relief. Why do you think that would be the case? Oh – yeah, it all fell off. Prove it!

Quote

MS: ...contra other evidence from Abydos. Quote: ‘Seti might not have wished the wall of his ancestors “tarnished” by paint.’ Quote: ‘This may simply be another example of such personal expression on Seti’s part.’

Which puts the burden on you.

SC: Nice try, Martin. The initial burden rests with you. The extant evidence shows no paint. If it had paint and it fell off that is what you have to prove. Prove that and you may have a case. Citing other examples of painted reliefs from elsewhere in no way categorically proves that Set's was painted or, indeed, that it was unfinished, now does it? Only evidence from the King List relief itself at Abydos might prove that. Do you have such evidence?

Quote

SC: I did not gaffe in hosting an image of Vyse’s journal that was corrupted through reduced resolution. That was someone else.

MS: Consummate hypocrisy. Using the image as you did was your choice and your responsibility.

SC: And a responsibility I took very seriously, hence why I posted the image and asked questions about it. It took some time but eventually I got to the bottom of why that drawing from Frank D's site was different to that of Stadelmann's photo. I have every right to do that. There's no hypocrisy here.

Quote

SC: Trust me – I wasn’t even trying. And it’s not arrogance - it’s simply that I have no respect for your position in this particular discussion.

MS: My point again.

SC: Which is?

Quote

SC: Not so quickly – again:

MS: Not so quickly? Let me remind you, Scott: my challenge preceded your questions, as anyone can verify:

[www.grahamhancock.com]

You snipped it and evaded it, so don’t go pretending that you have priority here.

SC: Martin, “But let’s open another line of inquiry.” Not until I get satisfactory answers to my questions FIRST.

Quote

MS: You’ve talked a good fight about looking at THE EVIDENCE.

Let’s see you do it.

SC: I've looked at the evidence. Your evidence thus far has not convinced of of your argument.

Quote

[SNIP]

SC: Answer the questions.

MS: The answer as before:

SC: Your refusal has been noted. If there is anyone still around here who can be bothered following this thread, I'm sure they will also see your evasion.

Quote

MS: No, Scott. Let’s cut the the point in my post which you snipped and evaded. There seems to be more than one instance of Aa1 in the List relief:

[commons.wikimedia.org]

Repeat: get looking!

SC: Do you actually have a point or even a question?

MS: You’ve had a lot to say on the question. You act like you know something. WORK IT OUT.

SC: If you have something to say, say it. If you have other evidence to present, then present it. Until then, I remain unconvinced by your argument.

Kind regards,

SC