MJT: Because he knows his hypothesis is wrong, but lacks the decency of character to admit it.
SC: The Recovery Vault Theory (RVT) better explains and is better supported by the extant evidence.
MJT: If Scott thinks otherwise then let's see him present his arguements here and now against the points I raised with regard to his Antechamber hypothesis in relation to his Seed Bank theory.
SC: You have raised no valid points. The Ante Chamber cannot remotely be considered a 'last line of defense' for the KC - the architecture of this chamber simply does not permit such a scenario to be at all plausible. And neither can it remotely be considered as a 'decoy' burial chamber as you have speculated. That idea is even sillier than the orthodox one.
As a protection to the supposed tomb of the king as is proposed by Egyptologists' tomb theory, you absolutely would not design this chamber in such a way as to invite people into it to do goodness only knows what. In the Recovery Vault Theory (RVT), however, this is precisely what you are trying and hoping to do and it is helped by the assistance of a mechanism that will enable the stones to be lifted after having been lowered. If you honestly think the Granite Leaf was not a counter-weight system to the portcullis slabs and was once entirely moveable, you are simply kidding yourself.
You and the other Egypt-apologists ask silly questions like "how would they raise the granite leaf"? For goodness sake - we are talking about a people who could manoeuvre granite blocks in tight spaces that are 35 times heavier and you think they would struggle with raising the granite leaf. Ridiculous.
Come back when you actually have some valid points and don't waste my time.
Post Edited (29-Jun-12 10:10)