> All total pointless deflective bunkum typical of Stower.
It really was a massive deflection. There is nothing that REQUIRES your expertise to make such an observation; Anyone with eyes and a brain can see those brush strokes and decide for themselves if such a character exists. It's simply that your expertise has sensitized you to see things that others less trained in the art haven't noticed or reported yet. I'm not trained in art and I can see what you've described very plainly. In fact, I've made a few observations of my own including the witness marks, the long horizontal paint run in the joint, the scratches in the roof block along that wall joint, and what looks like paint brush marks on top of troweled plaster on the roof block surface.
This is not rocket science, nor does it require any special "expertise" other than whatever it takes to have the ability to recognize what's sitting there before our eyes.
Whether any of that means the cartouche was indeed painted in situ, or painted before it was installed, or painted during the construction of G1 is still an open question. But the actual character of the paint brushes that we see there in the physical evidence is not really an "opinion" at this point. Rather, it is presented rather clearly in the detailed photos. Whether anyone has different evidence that contradicts or rebuts these observations remains to be seen.
> In the meantime I think the basic principles have
> been well enough described, and as I have stated
> on numerous occasions the "ordinary reader" should
> have little difficulty in carrying out a basic
> analyses for him or herself, and further be able
> to form their own conclusions.
> The process application is not at all complex. It
> was simply a question of someone with the
> appropriate experience and education to identify
> it. Which in this case was me.
> The photographs are readily available online. They
> are of more than adequate spatial resolution and
> bit depth for these purposes and using images from
> three totally independent platforms taken over a
> decade or so negates any possibility of optical or
> electronic distortion or interference.
It's unreasonable to ask any more than that. The observations have been made and the photos are there for all to see and corroborate the observations. It's that simple. No need to start throwing insults.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?