> Yes, the link is dead.
> And you "think" it was the Hofer who said
> So you are acknowledging that it really
> wasn't Görlitz or Erdmann who
> claimed the Khufu cartouche was sampled!
> And what "cartouche" did the "film maker" mean?
> You know with certainty he meant the "Khufu"
> cartouche and not the "phyle" glyphs farther back
> toward the end of the wall?
> That's your proof that Görlitz claimed the
> samples were from the "Khufu cartouche"?
> Are you really suggesting that Höfer was at all
> qualified to be the Görlitz-Erdmann spokesperson
> regarding things archeological? Here are more
> examples of Höfer's scholarly filmmaking
> Of course, the irony is that those glyphs back at
> the end corner of that wall are indeed the "phyle"
> suffix that follow an anticipated cartouche which
> is very possibly concealed behind the wall joint.
> So Höfer might not have been that far off by
> associating those glyphs as being part of the
> "cartouche" which would make him essentially
These specimens, Gorlitz says, have since been handed to Dresden University for analysis and dating.
Gorlitz told the Cairo Post that they did not enter the Great Pyramid with the intention of taking samples. "The decision was made when we were inside," he said.
Erdmann has told the German magazine Der Spiegel that the scraping was not from the cartouche itself, but rather a marking made with the same pigment nearby. The samples had later been taken from Egypt to the Fresenius Institute in Dresden to be examined, he said.
Included in the article are links to Gorlitz and Erdmann's original interviews where they made these comments.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20-May-16 20:14 by Thanos5150.