MJT: Scott is still not prepared to deal with these key issues.
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.
MJT: Then how do you explain, for example, the absence of semi-circular hollows at the top of the east wainscot?
SC: Why on earth do you think the semi-circular hollows are required on the east wainscot?
MJT: 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.
SC: Except the counter-weight system of the Ante Chamber most likely had a secondary function possibly related to Houdin’s counter-weight system in the Grand Gallery for raising the even heavier blocks. The POINT, however, is that this system of weights in the Ante Chamber would categorically NOT have safeguarded the tomb from robbers as mainstream Egyptology and their Egypt-apologist poodles have been telling us for the best part of 200 years. The weights in the Ante Chamber served as counter-weights and when the vaults were ready to be finally sealed, they served as blocking stones to effect an ‘air-lock’.
MJT: 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: Already explained elsewhere in the thread.
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 them...
SC: Wow - you really are an undercover genius! (Was that last statement of yours issued by the Ministry of Stating the Bleeding Obvious)?
MJT: 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: You have raised no significant points that have not already been addressed elsewhere in this thread. It seems fairly obvious to a number of people here who have expressed an opinion, that the setup of the Ante Chamber could indeed have operated in the fashion I propose (or something close to it). That is, with the exception of you. But I guess that is only because you have some vested interest in this not being correct.
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.
MJT: 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 symbolic than functional.
SC: Oh yes – that old chestnut. When a piece of evidence cannot be reasonably or sensibly explained within the consensus paradigm they then take the cop-out route and simply chalk it up to symbolism – problem solved. How so very typical. How so very dull-minded. How so very wrong.
So, according to you, the Ante Chamber is now a 'symbolic' chamber and the King's Chamber is a 'decoy' burial chamber (which wouldn't actually have worked as a decoy). I take it you think the Grand Gallery was purely symbolic too and had no practical function? And given that you have previously stated that you believe the granite plugs were placed in-situ, that the Ascending Passage is also purely symbolic since they'd never get anything through it.
When will the Egypt-apologists on this board quit labeling everything as 'symbolic' thus skipping round having to properly explain anything. 'Symbolic' is simply another way of them saying "we haven't a clue". It never occurs to such people that these chambers actually WERE functional, just not in the way they imagine. It never occurs to such people that all the blood, sweat and tears that went into building the various chambers within the GP was for real practical reasons and NOT merely the 'symbolic' cop-out they always trot out when the evidence does not support what they are saying.
MJT: Can't possibly have facts getting in the way of a pet theory, can we...
SC: Time to take your own pet theory to the vet and have it humanely put to sleep.
MJT: No doubt you, Scott, and your RVT will be several places ahead of me in the queue. ;)
SC: I see you’re back in ‘Fantasy Land’ again.
Post Edited (29-Jun-12 19:35)