Jon Ellison Wrote:
> He's relying on my expertise in connection with
> part of his theory.
> That is... That the painting was made in situ.
> Which is... What the brush strokes say.
> There's nothing I can do to change that.
> I guess I could try to ignore it or hide it. But
> that would be dishonest.
> As I said.. The best course of action would be for
> someone to commission their own analyst and then
> publish the report.
> Or as Phil said, I would encourage anyone to
> download the highest quality images that they can
> find and carry out their own analyses.
> Start with the top glyph. (tongs I think), there
> are three strokes.
> Which order were they made in?
> Where did they start and end?
> What type of brush would have been necessary?
> Things to consider..
> Arc of arm and hand movement, right handed or left
> Standing position.
> All of the parameters that go to make a signature
> Signatures are unique. That's why we use them.
> Go for it!
> Follow the evidence, it cannot lie,
Are the matters listed above in bold, the sort of detailed analysis Creighton commissioned in your report?
Can we expect to read your full "expert analysis" and substantive supportive arguments for your conclusions?
If not, are you able to share the answers to these questions on GHMB now? Or are they "report" secrets contracted and not available for public viewing?
IOW ....Is that in the book? Or don't you know what Creighton is putting in the book, which is apparently attributed by name to your independent research and expertise? If not, don't you professionally care whether SC distorts your expert analysis?
> My "Expert" expertise was only required to make
> people aware that this method exists..
> Which Scott and I did.
Do you or Scott really actually think that modern humans (readers) would not be aware that any crude painted scribble or writing on stone is likely to give some possible or likely indication of the direction and starting point of "brush strokes"?
> I'm only aware of it because I have spent a
> considerable amount of time trying to figure out
> how, for example Claude Monet could make three
> splodges of coloured sticky stuff be a dead ringer
> for a Water Lily. A lot of people are quite
> enamored by his paintings.
Can you tell from a photograph whether Monet drew clockwise or anticlockwise or where he started and finished?
Really? Where and how?
Would you need a higher resolution photo or would it perhaps be better/necessary to examine the genuine article in order to offer near conclusive quality expert opinion ?
> People are intelligent and can form their own
> opinions. They are not sheep.
Unfortunately , some people have a bias, then they find (conjure or imagine) conformational bias!
In your expert analysis:
Did you examine all (high res photos) of the other cartouches and quarry marks Wellington Nelson upwards particularly the vertical painting upside down in Lady Aburthnot's?
Are there any microscopic tell tale paint runs on any of the others?
Do they indicate that the "painter" was different (style, brush, handedness etc) than the Campbell's cartouche? If so, how do they differ? If the same "forger" or "hoaxer" why did they bother with all the others?
Were they merely practicing for the final gotcha cartouche? In your expert opinion would it not be not more difficult to forge unfamiliar writing (hieratic) upside down?
In your expert opinion, if all that a forger needed was a "Khufu" cartouche, then would it not been easier to paint it in an upright horizontal manner on a vertical wall in a lower chamber? If not, then ...why not?
What is the advantage of having to contort oneself into a Michelangelo pose and attempt a forgery on an angled gable roof? Do the drips drop vertically and not run or something?
Edit to add: Asking did you study in your highly admirable art degrees how to paint deep into concealed crevices in multi ton block structures? Can you tell us the technical procedure for that?
My appreciation for your expert opinion, in advance.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27-Jun-16 00:14 by Corpuscles.