> Yes, Femano, I can quite see that you’d give
> “the benefit of the doubt” to a bumbling
> criminal liar who shares your ideology.
> Görlitz and Erdmann first of all claimed to have
> sampled the cartouche and then, when something hit
> the fan, furiously denied having done so. One way
> or another, they lied.
> Görlitz (as seen on video) failed to followed
> elementary sampling protocols.
> Such as these you’re prepared to trust, when it suits you.
"Benefit of the doubt for the time being" is not "trust".
> Not so strange, then, that no such “benefit of
> the doubt” is extended to Richard Howard Vyse.
> Here you align yourself with the moral
> charlatanism of Scott Creighton and condemn him
> utterly for the far less egregious and relevant
> offence of behaving very much like other
> parliamentary candidates in the early decades of
> the 19th century.
Well let's see, Vyse apparently wasn't able to produce any independent lab or anyone else that wasn't part of his own team that could verify the authenticity of his cartouche or even the existence of his infamous G3 sarcophagus. And yet you find something about Vyse's personal word that somehow supercedes the contradictory - or in many aspects the total lack of - data. You can't even verify whether the crate was aboard the Beatrice when it departed from Alexandria. The entire insurance payout barely paid for the cost to ship it from Cairo to Alexandria. And yet you take Vyse on his own personal word without requiring any other verification amidst all the contradictions and lack of supporting evidence.
And I said "for the time being" which obviously means pending contradiction or verification from the lab. But your own ideology must have missed that pesky detail.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 31-May-16 18:18 by Origyptian.