Chris Tedder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Why jump to that conclusion? The casing stones
> most probably covered the outlets of the upper
> shafts, effectively 'plugging' them - if they did
> not, it means the sarcophagus chamber was open to
> the elements which would be unprecedented for a
> royal burial in Dyn 4 - "water, fine wind blown
> sand, bats, creepy crawlies of all shapes and
> sizes would have violated the sanctity of the
> sarcophagus chamber - unthinkable in an AE
> context."
>


Apparently not, since that what it appears is what they left.




>
> So if you believe the top end of the shafts were
> not covered / 'plugged' by casing stones - they
> were open to the elements, that goes against what
> we know of AE burial practise - doesn't that
> bother you?
>


It didn't seem to have bothered them, which is what really matters here.




>
> If they were covered by the casing stones, which
> they most probably were for obvious reasons - then
> the upper shafts were effectively "plugged" -
> which means none of the four shafts were open to
> the elements - so what was your argument again?
>

Plugged by the casing stones, if indeed they were, is very different from being sealed off on the interior and plugged by ten meters of core masonry.



>
>
> AS: "Your stellar target hypothesis fails this
> most basic rebuttal."
>
>
>
> MY stellar hypothesis !!!!!! I make no such claim



You defend it as if it were your own.


> - do not misrepresent my position again, and the
> so called "basic rebuttal" that you are now
> desparately clinging to after all your other
> 'arguments' have been demolished, is nothing but a
> non existent problem as I have clearly
> demonstrated.


You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. The difference between the upper and lower shafts must be explained by the theory... not excused to maintain it.




>
>
> The credit for the star hypothesis, as you should
> well know by now, goes to Egyptologist Alexander
> Badawy who proposed it as far back as 1954. His
> theory was endorsed by other experienced
> Egyptologists, for example, Dr Edwards and Mark
> Lehner.


Badawy was negated by close examination of the claims made. See JHA 38:2 (No. 131), May 2007, pp199-206.

The stellar hypotheses are dead and buried.



>
> I have explained how Badawy's theory works many
> times here on Maat - I have also pointed out the
> flaws in his theory and corrected them. So far,
> no one has yet come up with any rational argument
> that invalidates his theory -

Stating it has not occurred does not negate the fact that it has occurred and it is actually you, or any other defender of correlations, who have failed to answer the rebuttal. The hypotheses are dead.


> so if you wanna be
> the fastest gun in the west and shoot down Badawy
> you will just have to bite the bullet and come up
> with real arguments.



Repeating the arguments, as has been done many times, does not make them more valid. They stood the first time they were presented. JHA is just the capstone.



>
>
> I would love that - to have someone, anyone come
> up with substantive arguments that invalidate
> Badawy's theory - then perhaps my own original
> ideas for the purpose of the shafts might have a
> chance.

It's already done.



Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.