> 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
"...I don't see any problem with the quarry marks, so
> wouldn't see any particular point in a 'forensic scientific
> 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.
The technical feasibility - or otherwise - of such a procedure is being discussed elsewhere in this thread.
Whether it is advisable is another matter - and, personally, I don't see the point of disturbing archaeological inscriptions unless there's some very good reason. The suggestions of Sitchin (and some other authors), that have been considered at length, don't seem to me to have any substance to them. And, as regards the Brewer family tradition, there are too many uncertainties and unanswered questions to allow it to be accepted as admissible evidence.