> What you say is true. Confusion was created by
> film maker Frank Hoefer who was in Germany at the
> time in saying prematurely that the sample was
> from the Cartouche. Irrespective of what you may
> interpret about this, the fact remains that Dr.
> Gorlitz DID NOT TAKE THE SAMPLE FROM THE
> CARTOUCHE but from another graffiti area about
> one meter away (Femano is on the right lines) and
> this has been proven with photography beyond any
> doubt as you should very well know.
> Lets see what Dominique Gorlitz says in his
> official forthcoming statement in the days to come
> before more confusion builds on previous confusion
> shall we?
It's very simple to see that the team was a tiny enterprise that got itself into a huge communication project. Two maverick investigators and a fledgling filmmaker trying to manage world communication of the event. It's not rocket surgery to see that Höfer (or whoever else was involved in press releases), with negligible, if any, prior training in hieroglyphics, certainly may have overextended himself, feverishly writing copy for various media venues, and at least once confused the phyle glyphs at the far end of the chamber, which Görlitz likely recognizes as being the tag line to a cartouche hidden behind the joint, as Khufu's cartouche. This mistake clearly did indeed happen at least in that one web report at news.com.au.
But for that understandable error to be interpreted as a deliberate coordinated attempt by Höfer, et al. - endorsed by the investigators - to lead the public to believe that the real Khufu cartouche was sampled and that this somehow is an example of a scheming team caught in a gotcha contradiction due to a "bungling criminal liar" at the helm is a very naive interpretation of how that kind of marcom mistake happens. Nothing devious about it.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21-May-16 13:32 by Origyptian.