Thank you for your reply. However I was disappointed with the lack of detail provided.
Jon Ellison Wrote:
> Corpuscles Wrote:
> > Are the matters listed above in bold, the sort
> > detailed analysis Creighton commissioned in
> > report?
> > Can we expect to read your full "expert
> > and substantive supportive arguments for your
> > conclusions?
> No. It would be far better if you carried out your
> own analyses.
So are you suggesting that your contribution to Creighton's book is so sparse and flakey (I suspect virtually non existent) that person like me (btw who holds several degrees inc post grad) but none in Art is in just as good position to assess the cartouche as you in fact "better"?
> > If not, are you able to share the answers to
> > questions on GHMB now? Or are they "report"
> > secrets contracted and not available for public
> > viewing?
> As above.
> > 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
> > research and expertise? If not, don't you
> > professionally care whether SC distorts your
> > expert analysis?
> Once any job has been completed and passed on
> there is very little any originator can do to
> control it.
Again I am thoroughly disappointed. I would expect a serious publication that cites an independent researcher and expert to at least refer to a detailed report which I would expect be included unmodified as an Appendix! Perhaps with an introduction indicating the background and verification of said "expert".
To comment on the cartouche as an "art expert" I would expect to see some explanation of the bridge between art and study of painted hieratic on stone.
Things like :
-your detailed study of the types of brushes or writing implements eg camel hair or fibrous wooden etc.
- your extensive study of multiple painted glyphs and hieractic from other sites
- Your replication of the exercise of painting a cartouche on an angled stone and a flat stone
-detailed explaination as to why it is impossible to have been painted flat in a quarry
Lots of other things, but you ought know that if you were an "expert".
So, I ask again is there significant detail of your own work in Creighton's book?
It seems all that has happened is that as a wet behind the ears newbie to GHMB you posted a theory, it was picked up by SC, then some clarifying private email exchanges and that is ALL? Perhaps he didn't even seek your authorisation to use your real name?
> > > My "Expert" expertise was only required to
> > > people aware that this method exists..
> > > Which Scott and I did.
> I think that any modern human would be capable of
> determining the brush stroke sequence, once they
> had been made aware of it as an analytical tool.
> It's for this reason that I would encourage you to
> carry out your own analyses and draw your own
No expert required? No expert opinion with substantiated support given?
> It may be necessary to zoom in to see the
> crossovers, intercepts and modulation.
> This is intended only as a sequence awareness
> guide as it has obviously been edited.
> Please refer to an original photograph available
> online and carry out your own analyses.
Thank you for the great blown up pic of Monet's water lily's. I can see the layering and have some idea of the brush sequence. It helps of course to know Monet was right handed.
> A point to bear in mind is the stroke sequencing,
> painted horizontally vs. vertically.
> How would you begin if you were painting
> horizontally vs. vertically?
This is interesting. Is this the type of stuff you did to determine the cartouche brush strokes were made in situ? Can you explain why the same thing cannot have been made vertically on a flat surface in the quarry?
> > >
> > > 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!
> True but that bias is the result of a plethora of
> other inputs that may not be the result of the
> pure and direct observation of the primary source.
> Which is the cartouche itself.
> In order to be objective one has to disregard the
> "is it" or "isn't it" conflict and work solely
> with the data.
However, your data consists of only a couple of pictures. You claim to see paint runs. I have stared at it like I suspect many others and do not see any paint runs! Nor clear indication of vertical/horizontal strokes
> > In your expert analysis:
> > Did you examine all (high res photos) of the
> > cartouches and quarry marks Wellington Nelson
> > upwards particularly the vertical painting
> > down in Lady Aburthnot's?
> None available.
> > Are there any microscopic tell tale paint runs
> > any of the others?
> As above. If you know of any I'd appreciate it if
> you'd let me have a copy.
> However there is a benefit in looking at the
> cartouche in isolation.
> > Do they indicate that the "painter" was
> > (style, brush, handedness etc) than the
> > cartouche? If so, how do they differ? If the
> > "forger" or "hoaxer" why did they bother with
> > the others?
> There is a variation in style, brush, hand.
You advised above that you had no access to photographs of the cartouches and writing in other chambers, but then declare "variation in style, brush, hand". Impossible for you to determine. Are you just trying to bluff and make up BS! Is BS what Creighton asked you for?
> > Were they merely practicing for the final
> > cartouche?
> I don't know. I can only comment on the physical
> relationship of the materials.
> In your expert opinion would it not be
> > not more difficult to forge unfamiliar writing
> > (hieratic) upside down?
> No. How would the forger know what was the
> correct orientation?
I think poster EyeofHorus has already addressed the issue. A forger would have no reason to attempt to paint them upside down. Nor in 1837 would they be significantly skilled in hieratic to be capable of doing it.
The point,is that it is no good being an art expert when the issue is authenticity of ancient AE handwriting.
> > In your expert opinion, if all that a forger
> > needed was a "Khufu" cartouche, then would it
> > been easier to paint it in an upright
> > manner on a vertical wall in a lower chamber?
> > not, then ...why not?
> Again can't answer I can only comment on the
> physicality of the artwork and the way in which it
> was constructed.
But you provide no reasons (supporting information) whatsoever... as to why you think they were 'painted' that way or even how?
> > What is the advantage of having to contort
> > into a Michelangelo pose and attempt a forgery
> > an angled gable roof?
> Again I cannot comment on motive only the artwork
So your independent research and expertise simply amounts to a guess based on your bias?
How is that video coming along?
> > Edit to add: Asking did you study in your
> > admirable art degrees how to paint deep into
> > concealed crevices in multi ton block
> > Can you tell us the technical procedure for
> Access the crevices and then apply paint, usually
> using a brush.
Is that what you learnt in Uni? Plain BS! How do you access such crevices attested to by many many eye witnesses who declare it impossible?
> > My appreciation for your expert opinion, in
> > advance.
> > Cheers
> It's been a pleasure.
> I particularly like discussing Monet, and the
> relationship between physics and art.
> Bloody marvelous.
It is obvious you know more than a thing or too about art and impressionists in particular.
What I am yet to ascertain is whether you know anything that would qualify you as an expert or even a real researcher into painted hieratic ?
It seems Lover's "gargantuan ego's" comment seems apt to the reason for any actual consent to be cited in SC book?
Yes a pleasure ... bloody marvellous!
But can you address the questions this time?