1650 replies to this topic

[tri-lobe]

tri-lobe, on 03 June 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

HEY Wm ,

father or son......who was it?????
kufu or kafra......?????

what say you watchman??????

Hey wm,
I notice in you'r first line the derogatory comment.....

thanks mate that's why i name people like you with that snotty attitude.....Wayne keers.......you earned it......
you are not robbinson cruesoe in this department......
you share this with others of you're kind....

THANK YOU wm i learnt nothing from your post.....

this is the normal response........from what ever........

[tri-lobe]

thewatchman7, on 03 June 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

i dont know, i wasnt there.

....

OOHH come on wm.....
you dont have any thing to contribute.....

but you criticize others...... yes that is the UM standardthat is normal on this forum......

yes.... you were'nt there ...........what a copp-out.....

[Leonardo]

Scott Creighton, on 03 June 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Now, there is another body of evidence that lends support to the veracity of the Inventory Stele testimony. It comes from the field of geology. In 1997 (revised 1999) geologist Colin D. Reader undertook a review of the geology, geomorphology and surface hydrology of the Giza necropolis which has led to a revised sequence of development for the site.  The key findings of Reader are as follows:

Reader's paper has been rebutted by recent studies, including this one from 2006 by G Vandecruys. It addresses all the 'issues' Reader suggests points to an Early Dynastic phase of building at the Giza necropolis, including the Sphinx, temples, etc, and finishes with a conclusion there is insufficient credibility in Reader's thesis to suggest the Sphinx was not built by Khafre.

[Time Spy]

Scott Creighton, on 03 June 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Hi UM,

Well, there you have it folks – Kmt is off to seek succour in the bosom of his biased buddies and doesn’t want to play anymore. That’s his choice.  But it does not excuse his biased cherry-picking of evidence in any way, shape or form. If he had really studied AE history for 20 years as he has claimed then he would almost certainly have known folks that there is much more to the question of the Sphinx’s age and its ownership than the paltry nuggets of information he decided to present to us in his posts #26 & #27. Those posts are a first class example of the sleight of hand, of the cherry-picking of facts that are conveniently used to prop up the mainstream historical narrative, namely the flawed tomb theory wedded to the notion that Rachaf crafted the Sphinx.

But folks, stand well back a moment and take a wider perspective.  (It’s much easy to do that when you are out here on the fringe – a really cool place to be if you want to see the bigger picture). Kmt makes great play of the fact (not disputed) that the Inventory Stele dates to a much later period (26^th dynasty) which – according to mainstream thought - is roughly 2000 years after the Sphinx was supposed to have been crafted. What Kmt omits to inform us is that the name Rachaf (Khafre) does not appear anywhere on the body of the Sphinx (nor on the pyramid attributed to him). The only inscription of Rachaf (or partial inscription I should say, ‘Chaf’) appears on the Dream Stele, a tablet of stone that stands between the paws of the Sphinx.

But folks, the so-called Dream Stele was created 1,000 years after the Sphinx was (supposedly) crafted and it does not state at all that Rachaf created  it. This Dream Stele, bearing the ‘Chaf’ inscription is held up as evidence by the Egyptologists and their Egypt-apologists as proof of Rachaf’s hand in creating the Sphinx. So essentially folks, it’s okay to use a stone record if it is only 1,000 years after the supposed event but NOT if it is 2,000 years after.  And it is okay for them to use the Dream Stele in this way because it offers a glimmer of support to their particular narrative with regards to the chronology and ownership of these monuments. The Inventory Stele, on the other hand, does not support their narrative so it is ignored and regarded by the Egypt-apologists as a “pious fraud”, created much later by the Saite priests to confer their cult with legitimacy.

So the Inventory Stele (written 2,000 years after the supposed time of the Sphinx) is a “pious fraud” but the Dream Stele (written 1,000 years after the supposed time of the Sphinx) is perfectly okay.  Folks - does this not reek with the utter stench of cherry-picking your evidence? Let us take a few moments here to have a look at the Inventory Stele and then we will see exactly why the Egyptologists and their apologists reject the ‘testimony’ of the Inventory Stele and why it is expedient of them to do so.



It seems then, folks, that the Inventory Stele may actually commemorate the construction of Khufu’s pyramid in addition to the maintenance and repair works he carried out to various other structures within the Giza complex. Specifically named are the Temple of Isis and the Sphinx which, of course, clearly implies that, contrary to mainstream opinion, the cult of Osiris/Isis was highly developed (Isis is referred to as a goddess and Osiris as Lord) as early as the 4th dynasty (if not before).

Furthermore, the Sphinx, traditionally attributed to Rachaf (Khafre) by Egyptologists, could not have been built by Rachaf since it seemingly already existed in the time of his predecessor, Khufu (who apparently had it repaired). Furthermore, the Sphinx must already have been of great age if it required restoration by Khufu.

In the 1930s, when Egyptologist Professor Selim Hassan was clearing away the sands that had long since engulfed the Sphinx, he discovered that such ancient repairs had indeed been made to the head of the Sphinx and that the dimensions of the repair work he observed closely matched the dimensions stated in the Inventory Stele, 3.7 metres. Hassan also noted that a sycamore tree was growing slightly to the south of the Sphinx and, given that these trees can live for thousands of years, surmised that it may have been an offshoot of the original sycamore mentioned in the Inventory Stele that had been struck with a bolt of lightning. Traces of ancient paint (mentioned in the Inventory Stele) have also been found on the side of the Sphinx’s head. So it seems that – far from being a “pious fraud” – the Inventory Stele clearly speaks of events of proven historical fact and this must surely confer credibility upon the testimony of the Inventory Stele as a whole. For Egyptologists to simply dismiss this text because it does not fit their particular narrative is outrageous.  Rather than change their narrative they would rather dismiss the evidence that doesn’t fit their narrative. How convenient, how expedient.

Now, there is another body of evidence that lends support to the veracity of the Inventory Stele testimony. It comes from the field of geology. In 1997 (revised 1999) geologist Colin D. Reader undertook a review of the geology, geomorphology and surface hydrology of the Giza necropolis which has led to a revised sequence of development for the site.  The key findings of Reader are as follows:

• In accordance with the conventional sequence of development, the excavation of the Sphinx post-dates the construction of Khufu's pyramid and the working of the associated quarries. Given the effect of Khufu's quarries on the surface hydrology of the site, this sequence of development largely precludes the erosion of the Sphinx enclosure by rainfall run-off25 - yet I consider that without the action of this agent of erosion, it is not possible to fully account for all the features of degradation that are present within the Sphinx enclosure. On this basis, therefore, I conclude that the excavation of the Sphinx was undertaken some time before Khufu's quarrying began, when rainfall over the more elevated areas of the Giza plateau was able to run-off a substantial catchment, gathering momentum before finally discharging into the Sphinx enclosure.
  
• …there is evidence to suggest that this Fourth Dynasty activity represents only a limited phase of construction within the Sphinx enclosure and can not be used to date the original construction of either the Sphinx or Sphinx temple. According to the Egyptologist H. Ricke, a 'seam' can be identified which runs through the masonry of all four corners of the Sphinx temple. This feature can be readily identified on the south east face of the structure, adjacent to Khafre's valley temple (Plate 3ii). According to Ricke, "this [seam] marked the outside of the walls of the temple in its first building phase. The north and south colonnades of the temple...were added after the interior of the temple had been largely finished with granite sheathing. For the addition, the middle part of the north and south walls were pushed back, and great limestone core blocks were added to the outside corners of the temple, which were never finished off"26. Given that the abandoned core blocks, discovered under the Amenhotep II temple, were destined for the "...corner of the Sphinx temple" they are evidently part of Ricke's second building phase. On the evidence of the pottery found beneath the masonry, this second phase of construction, together with the limited quarrying to the north of the Sphinx temple, can be dated to the Fourth Dynasty. Ricke does not speculate on the period of time that separated this Fourth Dynasty activity from the proceeding phase of Sphinx temple construction. However, on the basis of degradation of the limestones exposed within the Sphinx enclosure, it is evident that the two operations were undertaken under different conditions of weathering and erosion and were probably, therefore, separated by a significant period of time.
  
• The limited Fourth Dynasty quarry face, identified by Lehner (Figure 3 and Plate 3i), was excavated from relatively durable Member I rocks. Since being quarried in the Fourth Dynasty, this quarry face has been subject to weathering and erosion (including the processes of chemical weathering and exfoliation) and yet exhibits only slight degradation (see Plate 3i). By contrast, the same Member I beds, exposed elsewhere within the Sphinx enclosure, are more intensely degraded. The contrast in the intensity of degradation at the western limit of the Fourth Dynasty quarrying is striking (Plate 4i)29, with the exposures beyond the limit of quarrying being heavily degraded. I consider that the generally more intense degradation of the Member I rocks exposed within the Sphinx enclosure, can only be explained by attributing the construction of the Sphinx and the first phase of the Sphinx temple to a period before Khufu quarried the site, when the exposed limestone was subject to erosion by surface run-off.
  
• Under the conventional sequence of development, "Khafre's" causeway (and the Sphinx), were undeveloped at the time of Khufu's quarrying. If this sequence is correct, why should the extent of the quarrying have been limited by a feature (the causeway) that was not developed until sometime after Khufu's reign? The conventional sequence of development requires us to accept that Khufu's workmen went to the trouble of opening up a second quarry to the south of the causeway, rather than remove a linear body of rock which, at the time, served no apparent purpose.

You can read Colin Reader’s full paper here: Source.

As you can see, the geology of the Giza Plateau itself strongly suggests that the Sphinx existed even before Khufu and that this geological fact is supported and corroborated by the testimony of the Inventory Stele.

So folks, as you can see from the above, there’s more – much, much more - to the historical picture of the Sphinx than the narrow, highly selective picture Kmt portrays or would probably want you to know about.  He presents only his own narrow narrative; a filtered picture of our past designed to impress upon the good folks here that there is only one truth; that all the facts are being presented to you and that they point only to the particular narrative the Egyptologists think they have properly worked out.  Folks – Kmt’s filtered, biased narrative is FAR from the whole story.

Now that you have some more facts (and these are by no means exhaustive) the choice now is yours. You have to decide who has the best evidence and the best corroborated evidence. You pays your money, you takes your choice. At least I hope you are now a bit more informed than you were before and realise that the question is not as cut and dried as Kmt & Co leads you to believe.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Very good points Scott.  It seems that everytime someone presents ample and valid evidence to dispute what the majority has already ruled as a definite given (accepted opinion) although actually incorrect 'orthodox' thinking, then like vipors posters strike out in many ways just to stop the truth from being heard.  Many of them do so just to stick up with the 'clan', understand, agree or not.  The dream stele as you accurately pointed out is thousands of years behind the inventory stele.

The Sphinx has sat for thousands of years, oudating the building of the GP, while actually overlooking construction and guarding the schematic blueprints utilized for engineering reference in deep chambers still in tact far below the surface of the GP

It is obvious to myself that the Sphinx outdates the GP.

Edited by Time Spy, 03 June 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[Scott Creighton]

Leonardo, on 03 June 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Reader's paper has been rebutted by recent studies, including this one from 2006 by G Vandecruys. It addresses all the 'issues' Reader suggests points to an Early Dynastic phase of building at the Giza necropolis, including the Sphinx, temples, etc, and finishes with a conclusion there is insufficient credibility in Reader's thesis to suggest the Sphinx was not built by Khafre.

Reader responds to Vandecruys:

Quote

Colin Reader, "Response to Vandecruys (2006)," PalArch: Netherlands Scientific Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2006), 13 pp.

In his response to Vandecruys, Reader observed that the water table at Giza is well below the floor of the Sphinx enclosure (and of Campbell's Tomb) and has been below it in historic times. Rainwater normally drains down to the water table. Some water might still have moved toward the enclosure along the relatively less permeable beds of Member II strata in the plateau behind the Sphinx. But the dip of the plateau would have caused any subsurface flow of water to erode the western enclosure wall more than the southern wall. Yet the western half of the southern wall shows as much erosion as the western wall.

Regarding Campbell's Tomb, Reader observed that its walls did not show any coving or rounding of the kind visible in the Sphinx enclosure. Reader also noted the erosion channel on the floor of the latter, originating below the major fissure on the southern wall, as evidence of surface runoff into the enclosure (drawn in Fig. 2.2).

Reader agreed that the northern terrace wall opposite the Sphinx Temple becomes slightly more weathered as it proceeds into open space to the east. But this difference does not explain the much greater contrast of these two exposures to the severely degraded wall opposite the north flank of the Sphinx.

Reader agreed that it was uncertain how much stone Khufu removed from the quarry north of the Khafra Causeway, and thus how far Khufu may have respected a preexisting pathway there. Reader observed that the likelihood of the ground for the causeway surviving Khufu's excavations by accident was still rather low.

Gerd Vandecruys, "Response to Reader (2006): More geological and archaeological data on the Sphinx discussion," PalArch: Netherlands Scientific Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2006), 11 pp.

In a follow-up article, Vandecruys argued that the plateau behind the Sphinx enclosure was criss-crossed with joints through which subsurface interflow could have reached the Sphinx enclosure more easily than through the rock itself. He noted that the top ledge of the southern enclosure wall was relatively smooth and uneroded compared to the deeply eroded strata of the wall below. Subsurface flow could better explain this anomaly than runoff, which should have eroded the top of the wall.

Vandecruys noted that the erosion channel on the floor of the Sphinx enclosure is incised in an area that still belongs to the Member II layer and thus probably required very little water to erode into its present form. Vandecruys also cited Lehner's argument that a low enclosure wall around the south side of the Khafra Valley Temple pointed to the construction of that temple before the Sphinx Temple.

Colin Reader, "Further considerations on development at Giza before the 4th dynasty," PalArch: Netherlands Scientific Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2006), 13 pp.
In his follow-up response, Reader noted that the force of any subsurface water that did flow laterally would have been greater moving downhill than uphill. Since interflow would have needed to go around the southwest corner of the Sphinx enclosure and then partly uphill to erode the southern wall from the inside out, the western end of the south wall should display less erosion than the western wall. But the western half of the southern wall is just as eroded as the western wall.

Regarding the uneroded top ledge of the southern wall, Reader proposed that the surface was recut to lay the Khafra Causeway and thus cannot be cited as evidence against surface runoff in earlier centuries. Traces that Reader interpreted as gulleying can still be seen at the base of the causeway. Reader proposed that the ground of the future causeway was only a path in Early Dynastic times.

Reader also pointed to a small section cut out of the degraded northern terrace wall inside the Sphinx enclosure (Fig. 8.8 below, marked A), below the New Kingdom temple. The rectilinearity and smoothness of the cutback resembled that of the wall opposite the north side of the Sphinx Temple but was more exposed than the latter. Reader argued that both should be dated to the Old Kingdom.


Fig. 8.8. The severely eroded northern terrace wall inside the Sphinx enclosure terminates abruptly (at the cut marked "A") just below the New Kingdom temple. Courtesy and copyright of Colin Reader.

In addressing the question of whether the Sphinx Temple rests on the northern perimeter of an enclosure wall originally planned or built as part of the Khafra Valley Temple, Reader asked if the stone identified as the northeast corner was in fact the corner of an enclosure wall. The stones are uneven and their continuity may be questioned. Since they appear to intercept the present southeast corner of the Sphinx Temple, which Herbert Ricke identified with the second stage of the temple's construction, they would not necessarily refute the case for an earlier Sphinx Temple.  - Source

Within the geological community, this particular debate is far from over. Fact of the matter remains, Reader's opinion of an earlier Sphinx is supported and corroborated by what the AEs themselves have written in the Inventory Stele (believed to have been based on a much more ancient and original text).

Best wishes,

SC

[questionmark]

Scott Creighton, on 03 June 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Reader responds to Vandecruys:



Within the geological community, this particular debate is far from over. Fact of the matter remains, Reader's opinion of an earlier Sphinx is supported and corroborated by what the AEs themselves have written in the Inventory Stele (believed to have been based on a much more ancient and original text).

Best wishes,

SC

I bevel here we have another severe case of somebody pressing his index fingers in his ear and squealing as loud as he can: "lalala I can't hear you".

Just compare the severe "weathering" with pictures of before rampant air pollution in Giza and surprise surprise it disappears... ooops...

[lakeview rud]

Blaming recent pollution for the apparent weathering of the Sphinx is quite a stretch; please see Robert Temple's book about the mysterious origins of the temple of Anubis... He makes some pretty strange claims but the collection of very old photographs in the book attest to the erosion and also to the fact that the sphinx has been modified to the point where you loose sight of the original.  His previous books were short on research but on this one he seems to have done his homework. Particularly when it comes to examining the head of the sphinx to find out who best fits the look.  He suggests that its Amenhotep(?) from something like the 17th dynasty based on facial similarities and the fact that the nemes headress fits the 17th dynasty.  No way that that was a pharoah from the 4th dynasty!!  So was it originally Anubis? (a dog!!) Tough to tell but that would make a perfect guardian for a necropolis.  He also suggests that the weathering is due to the enclosure being flooded periodically for ceremonies which might please you folks who cannot stomach 10,000 BC as a date.  Since you cannot accurately date stone and the amount of stone quarried out of the enclosure was minimal compared to what was used on the pyramids, I'd say that the actual date of its creation is still very much in doubt. More research is needed...

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

My biggest problem with the 10,500 date is the lack of other large edifaces built at the same time. There's no evidence of other large building projects until much later. Do I believe the date given by Egyptologists? Enough to accept it, but not enough to be at all surprised if/when someoen comes up with a different date based upon their own research and compelling evidence.

[kmt_sesh]

Scott Creighton, on 03 June 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Hi UM,

Well, there you have it folks – Kmt is off to seek succour in the bosom of his biased buddies and doesn’t want to play anymore. That’s his choice.  But it does not excuse his biased cherry-picking of evidence in any way, shape or form. If he had really studied AE history for 20 years as he has claimed then he would almost certainly have known folks that there is much more to the question of the Sphinx’s age and its ownership than the paltry nuggets of information he decided to present to us in his posts #26 & #27. Those posts are a first class example of the sleight of hand, of the cherry-picking of facts that are conveniently used to prop up the mainstream historical narrative, namely the flawed tomb theory wedded to the notion that Rachaf crafted the Sphinx.

...

You can carry on at length with your misrepresentation of evidence and lack of understanding of research, but I've asked you once not to reply to my posts. Instead, now, you're carrying on with inappropriate and childish personal insults against me. This is against forum policy, as I'm sure you must know.

Please cease this behavior. My only recourse next is to report you to the Admin.

[Erudite Celt]

Has anyone noticed a growing trend on the forums for some members to bully, threaten and blackmail others into submission? ie, I don't like what you are writing, stop or I'll report you, stop or I'll get you banned. This is by any other name the worst kind of censorship. When one is forced to restrict the thoughts of ones mind, it creates a form of mental and intellectual imprisonment. If you want to ignore the thoughts and opinions of others a public ​forum is not the environment you want to be in. Failing that hit the ignore button and experience a bland world were everyone agrees with you!

[Scott Creighton]

kmt_sesh, on 03 June 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

KMT: You can carry on at length with your misrepresentation of evidence and lack of understanding of research,

SC: I misrepresent nothing.  I give the good folks here at UM the FULL facts, not just the filtered version you proffer.

Quote

KMT: ...but I've asked you once not to reply to my posts.

SC: Hate to break it to you but UM is a web site that serves to promote discussion among people with diverse views on various subjects. I do not recall reading anywhere where it says I cannot respond to a post made by another poster. If you do not wish someone (myself or anyone else) to reply to a post that you make, then do not make the post.  Simple. Ever heard of Freedom of Speech? You are permitted to say what you wish (within the Code of Conduct and RoE of the Board) and anyone is likewise entitled to respond. Or is it the case that you simply wish to sit upon high and simply dictate to everyone without any ripost?  You're not in a dictatorship here.

Quote

KMT: Instead, now, you're carrying on with inappropriate and childish personal insults against me. This is against forum policy, as I'm sure you must know.

SC: As I have said to you before. If I were to personally insult you (which I have not) you and everyone else here on UM would most certainly not mistake such and I would most certainly be banned from UM.

Quote

KMT: Please cease this behavior.

SC: What behaviour? Presenting you with evidence that your own understanding cannot deal with?  Tough!  Deal with it. Debate is good.

Quote

KMT: My only recourse next is to report you to the Admin.

SC: Go right ahead and do what you feel you have to.  You obviously mistake me for someone who gives a hee-haw.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 04 June 2012 - 12:06 AM.

[Swede]

Scott Creighton, on 03 June 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

SC: You are effectively asking me to prove a negative - a logical fallacy. Whilst it is possible to disprove a positive, I do not believe Egyptology has presented sufficient evidence to prove its hypothesis in the positive and it is the responsibility of Egyptology to prove the positive assertion i.e. its own case, not for me to disprove what hasn't yet been proven. It is the responsibility also of Egyptology to provide the test(s) whereby its hypothesis can be falsified. What test(s) has Egyptology presented that allows us to falsify their hypothesis?

Best wishes,

SC

Am unsure of your rationale. Two of the basic tenets of research are repeatability and the capacity for falsification. Any research paper is thus open to critique and further assessment of the methodology/results. Should you find specific (and demonstrable) errors in the current research, it then falls upon your shoulders to present a qualified paper refuting the topic with which you take issue. This involves a great deal more than utilizing internet sources.

You will then need to present this paper for review by a qualified journal, and be prepared (as Reader has attempted) to support your research.

Until such point as you have accomplished the above, your personal opinions (i.e. I do not believe Egyptology has presented sufficient evidence to prove its hypothesis in the positive...) will carry little weight.

As to the studies of Reader, it should also be kept in mind the he is quite aware of the lack of support for his position. He also acknowledges the need for further research (Archaeometry Vol. 43, No. 1). It should also be noted that the bulk of his publications have been presented in less than the most critical of venues. The "New Chronology" oriented (and now deceased) on-line publication source Journal of Ancient Chronology (which includes contributors such as David Rohl (!) ) would be but one example. Another example would be your recently cited PalArch on-line publication. This source is another version of the "pay-to-publish" genre (as per their own guidelines).

Edit: Addendum.

.

.

Edited by Swede, 04 June 2012 - 12:29 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

Scott Creighton, on 03 June 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

SC: I misrepresent nothing.  I give the good folks here at UM the FULL facts, not just the filtered version you proffer.




SC: Hate to break it to you but UM is a web site that serves to promote discussion among people with diverse views on various subjects. I do not recall reading anywhere where it says I cannot respond to a post made by another poster. If you do not wish someone (myself or anyone else) to reply to a post that you make, then do not make the post.  Simple. Ever heard of Freedom of Speech? You are permitted to say what you wish (within the Code of Conduct and RoE of the Board) and anyone is likewise entitled to respond. Or is it the case that you simply wish to sit upon high and simply dictate to everyone without any repost?  You're not in a dictatorship here.



SC: As I have said to you before. If I were to personally insult you (which I have not) you and everyone else here on UM would most certainly not mistake such and I would most certainly be banned from UM.



SC: What behaviour? Presenting you with evidence that your own understanding cannot deal with?  Tough!  Deal with it. Debate is good.



SC: Go right ahead and do what you feel you have to.  You obviously mistake me for someone who gives a hee-haw.

Best wishes,

SC

You should give a "hee-haw" for the integrity of UM and for the respect you ought to show other posters. As I've said before, I don't mind debating you or anyone, but I will not put up with personal insults and slights. If you cannot stay on topic but instead must ridicule me, your wasting my time, your time, and everyone else's time.

In any case I've already brought the downward spiral of this discussion to the attention of the Admin. It's only going to get worse, so I thought Saru should know. I myself have no desire to be involved in this sort of bicker-fest and am removing myself from the discussion until such time that cooler heads prevail. I shall defer to Saru. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but at present I see no need to be a part of this thread right now.

[Scott Creighton]

Swede, on 04 June 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Swede: Until such point as you have accomplished the above, your personal opinions (i.e. I do not believe Egyptology has presented sufficient evidence to prove its hypothesis in the positive...) will carry little weight.

SC: Then present to me the evidence I have been asking for on this Forum for a number of years now that proves the mainstream theory that the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs of AE kings of the period.  Present the evidence that will prove your case.

Quote

Swede: As to the studies of Reader, it should also be kept in mind the he is quite aware of the lack of support for his position. He also acknowledges the need for further research (Archaeometry Vol. 43, No. 1).

SC: Which is precisely the view mainsteam Egyptology should also be taking. But no - it asserts these early, giant pyramids were built as tombs, that Rachaf crafted the Sphinx, blah, blah, blah. It picks and chooses its evidence in order to massage a particular narrative whilst brazenly ignoring/dismissing all evidence that contradicts its assertions.

How convenient, how expedient.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 04 June 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[Scott Creighton]

kmt_sesh, on 04 June 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

KMT: You should give a "hee-haw" for the integrity of UM

SC: I have great respect for UM and love what it does.

Quote

KMT: ...and for the respect you ought to show other posters.

SC: Well, with respect but I do hope you will respect my absolute right to disrespect the opinions of mainstream Egyptology.

Quote

KMT: As I've said before, I don't mind debating you or anyone, but I will not put up with personal insults and slights.

SC: Good for you.

Quote

KMT: If you cannot stay on topic but instead must ridicule me, your wasting my time, your time, and everyone else's time.

SC: I do believe I have probably now made more on-topic posts in this thread than you have.  Could be wrong but I doubt it.  Why not go away and do a count for us just to check?

Quote

KMT: In any case I've already brought the downward spiral of this discussion to the attention of the Admin. It's only going to get worse, so I thought Saru should know.

SC: Jings!  Crivens!  Help-ma-boab!

Quote

KMT: I myself have no desire to be involved in this sort of bicker-fest and am removing myself from the discussion until such time that cooler heads prevail.

SC: Probably not a bad idea.  I've a cool head - you're the one who has already openly admitted you lost yours.

Quote

KMT: I shall defer to Saru. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but at present I see no need to be a part of this thread right now.

SC: Ah well. Haste ye back.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 04 June 2012 - 12:28 AM.