> DScribr wrote:
> > Ori refuses to accept the truth, and is too wishy-washy to
> > claim ANYTHING 'definitively'.
> > He doesn't hope to contradict our evidence, he tries to do
> so EVERY time.
> > His misguided opinions and unfounded speculations continue,
> > the facts remain unchanged.
> > ...
> > ...because you refuse to accept the 3 well-documented
> eye-witness accounts,
> > (made by well-respected Egyptolgists) that all state they ARE
> Tura...in fact,
> > you now refuse to admit these accounts even exist.
> Stop this nonsense.
> Regarding your claim that three well respected Egyptologists
> have decreed that the roof blocks in Campbell's chamber are
> Tura limestone and that I should, therefore, accept their
> decree, let me remind you:
> 1. I've never commented on Vyse's claim about Tura limestone.
> I'm not aware of any training Vyse had in geology that
> qualified him to make such a claim, or any geologist he might
> have contracted or quoted to have made such a claim.
> 2. Here are my comments on Romer's "Tura" claim:
> simply "says" they are Tura, but he provides us with no
> citation as verification. Meanwhile, the physical evidence says
> claims G1 is a tomb, that the granite in G1 was excavated and
> shaped by pounding balls, and that to build G1 "they built this
> enormous ramp". And Romer also still believes the RCs served to
> relieve pressure from above. I consider his authority on
> anything related to geology or physics to be questionable at
> best. I am simply unable to unquestionably accept Romer's
> credibility in the field of geology or physics.
My Reply: You are simply unable to accept any and all facts that don't support your LLAC 'Theory.'
> 3. ...and on Houdin's "Tura" claim:
I stumbled on Lee
> Paulson's photos a few months ago...I was already somewhat
> familiar with Dowell's work (obviously now much moreso), and
> I've only learned about Chapuis in this present discussion.
> Each photographer's material has its strengths...I have no idea
> what basis Houdin used to claim those blocks are Tura. He's a
> modern architect, and yet his construction model of G1 has
> significant flaws in it, and so on what basis are we to accept
> his opinion about something over in the Geology Dept.?...Right
> now, I have no "preference" about whether any block is coated.
> Anything I've said about coatings is simply based on what the
> photos show. Paulson has a photo in which one entire granite
> ceiling slab seems coated while the entire adjacent slab seems
> uncoated in one of G1's lower RCs (in fact, his photo and
> Dowell's photo of the most southwest gable block in Campbell's
> Chamber both suggest it is mostly coated).
MY Reply: "SEEMS coated...SEEMS uncoated......SUGGEST it's coated..." Also, we are talking about the LIMESTONE blocks here, NOT Granite. Your willful ignorance doesn't change the facts either.
The photos I've seen
> from several chambers show a wide variety of white goop on the
> walls in small blotches, large blotches, blotches centered over
> joints, blotches centered in the middle of the slab away from
> the joints, some blocks with no apparent coating at all, and
> other blocks that appear to be coated entirely, some limestone,
> some granite. It's just what I'm seeing in the photos. I have a
> few thoughts on it, but I'm not sure it belongs in this
> "Raising the Roof" discussion.
My Reply: YOU are seeing what YOU want to see IN PICS. You have NOT been there, the 3 HAVE been there.
> "Eyewitness accounts" of an ancient stone, covered in patina
> and soot, in pitch darkness, viewed with flashlights, without
> being able to take any samples hardly proves anything as
> "fact". The stones do not seem to be from the same quarries.
> It's not even clear...which paint markings were done at the
> quarry vs. at the construction site vs. in situ. Why do you
> think it would it matter to me whether those slabs are
> Tura...that I would be so fixated on denying that claim?
"...The stones do not SEEM to be from the same quarries..."
> What does Houdin know about geology? Based on the analysis I've
> read from him regarding the Grand Gallery, it's not even clear
> to me how much he understands about architecture. However, I do
> respect him tremendously even though I disagree with his
> conclusions. I respect him mainly because of how he's captured
> the attention of orthodoxy to stretch their tenet to include
> other possibilities.
> Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to cite the posts where
> I've ever denied that those three investigators made the claim
> of Tura in the RCs or where I've claimed those "roof blocks are
> NOT Tura"...in the spirit of "truth" and "honesty".
Your earlier comments ARE simply YOUR opinion, and in NO way can YOUR opinions be considered valid physical evidence. Why don't you apply YOUR standard of proof to YOUR 'non-claims'??? (YOU are seeing what YOU want to see IN PICS. You have NOT been there, the 3 HAVE been there.)
No doubt Houdin knows ALOT more than you about Geology, ETC. regardless of how unclear it is to YOU what he knows.
You ARE fixated with telling us that they are NOT Tura, and your posts in 'Raising The Roof' are ample proof of this.
Bears repeating: Ori refuses to accept the truth, and is too wishy-washy to
claim ANYTHING definitively....BUT, this doesn't stop you from telling us repeatedly that they are not Tura.
Try following your own advice, "Stop this nonsense."
Campbell's Chamber roof blocks are Tura Limestone until proven otherwise.
THE Cartouche in Campbell's Chamber IS Authentic, as are ALL other RC's Glyphs, until proven otherwise.
"This Forgery 'theory' has more holes than a sieve basket."