> Come back when you actually have some valid points and don't
> waste my time.
And still Scott avoids addressing the key issues here.
Because he knows that in addressing the points I raised he will undermine his own hypothesis re the purpose of the Antechamber, which in turn will go to show the ludicrousness of his 'Recovery Vault Theory'.
If I'm wrong in this, then come on, Scott, be a proper researcher/theorist for once and respond properly to the points I raised.
Scott wrote, '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.'
This is just another attempt by Scott to divert attention away from the major flaws in his RV theory and onto the mainstream tomb theory.
The tomb theory is largely irrelevant as far as your RVT is concerned, Scott.
Stop using it as a diversionary tactic - it only adds to your ever weakening credibility as a Pyramid researcher/theorist (see Scott's nonsensical 'Gravity Cubit' theory for evidence of this).
So few answers - and not one of them mine.