Origyptian wrote:

> Martin Stower wrote:
>
> > DScribr wrote:
> >
> > > Plz provide us w/ the physical evidence which supports this
> to be virtually impossible.
> >
> > We see once again that “physical evidence” (a legal term he
> > misuses) is merely an honorific he gives to his tenuous and
> > tendentious theoretical speculations.
>
> Once again, you refuse to back your claims with a single shred
> of evidence and instead opt for empty nickel words in an
> attempt to impress with fluff. So be it.
>
> It's interesting that you cannot point to a single shred of
> evidence that this stone has provenance in the 4th Dynasty. You
> haven't even produced anything showing that Engelbach or Murray
> thought it was from the 4th Dynasty, and they were there when
> the stone was first observed.
>
> I, on the other hand, have presented evidence that the stone
> was not shape, engraved, or positioned over 4000 years ago:
>
> 1) Stone too hard to work with 4th Dynasty tools
> -2)Stone too top heavy to stand for 4000 years.
> - 3)Stone too shallow of footing to stand for 4000 years.
> -4)Engraving too sloppy and sketchy to be sanctioned as an
> official royal marker.
> -5)Stone shows zero wear and tear from 4000 yrs of sandblasting,
> weather, & earthquakes.
>
> So why do YOU believe it was from the 4th Dynasty? Where is
> your evidence?
>
> And by the way, I use the term "Physical Evidence" as it
> applies to forensics, not trial law, because forensics is a
> crucial component of archeology.
>

>
> Post Edited (23-Jan-15 01:40)

1) FACT: The AE were carving gniess well before the First Dynasty....this is simply your misguided opinion.

2) It was standing when found....maybe someone stood it up a hundred yrs. ago, maybe not, but this has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ the stone's authenticity, etc.

3) See #2.

4) Your misguided opinion, no more...it was carved in the style the AE Artist chose.

5)Your misguided opinion, no more...obviously, parts of the stone have been broken off in the last 4,000 yrs. Also, since you didn't see it imm. after it was carved, how can you possibly make an accurate assessment of this???


I hope you can do better than this because your so-called evidence is extremely lacking, to say the least.