Okay - I could spend all day deconstructing every point Callan MacKenzie has made here. But I shall concentrate on this one point (below) for that one point is all that is needed to demonstrate how the Egypt-apologists have lost this debate, to wit:
"...I don't see any problem with the quarry marks, so wouldn't see any particular point in a 'forensic scientific consideration'." - Callan MacKenzie
SC: Now I have heard everything folks. The above statement from Callan MacKenzie should demonstrate to you (if such were needed) the complete absurdity of the Egypt-apologist position and how, by such expedient argumentation, they have actually brought Egyptology into disrepute.
What Callan MacKenzie (and I imagine supported by Stower and the other Egypt-apologists on this Board and elsewhere) are essentially saying here is that it is perfectly acceptable to consider and examine all other historical evidence in a bid to determine the truth of Howard-Vyse's claimed 'discovery' BUT NOT the actual inscriptions themselves; not the ONLY primary evidence we have.
Ladies and gentlemen - does that sound like a reasonable position to take - to NOT scientifically examine the only primary evidence available? Or is it more likely the case that those who support such a position do so for no other reason than historical expediency in order to uphold and protect the status quo? The Egypt-apologists cannot and should not be allowed to argue what can and cannot be tested for to do so demonstrates in them only an unwillingness to truly seek the truth about this issue. In my opinion to take such a stance amounts to nothing more than intellectual dishonesty; an indefensible and expedient position. Everything that CAN be scientifically tested SHOULD be scientifically tested, ESPECIALLY primary evidence.
Egyptology claims to be a 'science'. Well, given the cloud of uncertainty over the historical characters and 'testimonies' involved in this debate, there is now a clear case to demand that such forensic science be done on these inscriptions; on the primary evidence.
Why are the Egypt-apologists so against the science? Why are they so afraid to even accept the idea that such science now has to be considered? There is now too much doubt over the veracity of these inscriptions to NOT demand further evidence in order to settle the issue. But the Egypt-aplogists here will tell you that they "...do not see any particular point in a 'forensic scientific consideration" of these glyphs. I ask you, ladies and gentlemen - does that sound a reasonable position to you? Is that the way to get to the truth of this question?
I think not and I sincerely hope that you do too. The Egypt-apologist position is frankly untenable. There now requires to be a call to Egyptologists and to the Egyptian SCA to undertake a thorough scientific analysis of these inscriptions. Only by so doing can we have any hope of laying this long-running issue to rest once and for all. The Egypt-apologists think by simply burying their collective head in the sand that this issue will go away. They are wrong. This issue will not go away until the hard science is done. That is the bottom line.
Now the Egypt-apologists have a choice here - they can get on board and join the demand for the science to be done; they can demonstrate their willingness to seek the truth. Or they can snipe from the sidelines and simply deny, deny, deny. If the Egypt-apologists do not join the call for forensic tests to be done on these inscriptions in a bid to determine their veracity then, quite frankly, shame on them for then it will be clear to everyone that such individuals are not seekers of truth but mere defenders of dogma.
I shall most certainly be making a call in my next book, 'Ark of the Gods' for these scientific tests to be done. I hope those of you that are not blinded by historical dogma will join me in that call. We deserve the truth.
Post Edited (20-May-13 20:29)