MJT: Scott is still not prepared to deal with these key
> SC: You have raised no relevant issues. Any that may have been
> relevant have been answered elsewhere in the thread or can be
> answered with simple common sense.
Then how do you explain, for example, the absence of semi-circular hollows at the top of the east wainscot?
If the intent was to prevent air in the King's Chamber reaching the Grand Gallery, then all was needed was to plug either or both of the horizontal passages at either end of the Antechamber with blocks fitted with handles.
One could of course simply plug the shafts in the KC, but presumably something was stored in the Chamber that need a supply of fresh air.
Perhaps you can tell everybody what that something might have been.
SC: The Portcullis system within the Ante Chamber was
> used to RAISE (not lower) the granite slabs therein - period.
> MJT: However, to raise the blocks one has to first lower
> SC: Wow - you really are an undercover genius! (Was that last
> statement of yours issued by the Ministry of Stating the
> Bleeding Obvious)?
Actually, Scott, it is you who is missing the obvious - specifically the several faults with your Antechamber hypothesis - none of which, and this contrary to your claims, have been properly addressed by you.
Claiming 'it is common sense' is not a proper answer by a long chalk.
> SC: Alas, the FACTS work more to support the RVT than they do
> the defunct tomb theory. But I can see you really don't like
> hearing that.
I do not have a problem with the Antechamber not suiting the tomb theory.
This is simply because I hypothesise that the King's Chamber was not the actual burial chamber, thus making the Antechamber more sympolic than functional.
MJT: Can't possibly have facts getting in the way of a
> pet theory, can we...
> Time to take your own pet theory to the vet and
> have it humanely put to sleep.
No doubt you, Scott, and your RVT will be several places ahead of me in the queue. ;)
So few answers - and not one of them mine.