Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the logic of the case, where is there
> a possibility that he sampled Khufu's cartouche?
> Didn't the legal proceedings firmly conclude that
> there are no additional sample scratch marks on
> that cartouche compared to what is shown on the
> photographs shot by Dr. Dowell before Görlitz
> visited that chamber?

Do try catching up—and do try following the logic.

When were Görlitz and Erdmann first active at Giza? Did the legal proceedings come to any conclusion on this?

I was in any case addressing Fusniak’s contention that showing Görlitz doing one thing precludes his having done another: a simple non sequitur.

> In that case, do you believe it was Göelitz, or
> was it Erdmann, who approved the caption to the
> photo in the
> news.com.au article which claims Görlitz is
> pointing to Khufu's cartouche when he is really
> pointing to a different set of glyphs? What second
> set of eyes among the team approved this:



Excuse me? Görlitz and Erdmann have editorial control over an Australian news site?

Is this really what you meant to suggest?

For your information, the image (without decoration) appears at Abora site much as I found it in January 2014:

http://www.abora.eu/index.php?id=2371&no_cache=1

You will see that it appears with this caption:

“Die Untersuchung der widersprüchlichen Vyse Kartusche von 1837 in der obersten Entlastungskammer.”

I assume that Görlitz approved this one, it being his site.

Has it not sunk in yet who first identified what he was really pointing to?

M.