> R Avry Wilson Wrote [to Audrey]:
> > Why is it so hard for you to grasp that
> > analysis of how the paint was applied gives
> > no indication of when it was painted nor
> > whom. It is a non-sequitur study.
> > In what world do you think a conclusion can be
> > drawn from:
> > If "the brush stroke went from here to
> there", then ...
> > A. it must be a modern hand that wrote it
> > B. it must be an ancient hand that wrote it
> > Neither A nor B are practical solutions.
> I didn't see Jon make either conclusion. I thought
> he only said the brush strokes supported an in
> situ origin. I don't recall Jon making any
> statement about the age of the brush strokes, but
> maybe I misread it. What's your reference say
> about it? Jon, care to chime in?
That's what I gathered.
There is no artistic observation that can decisively conclude it was painted in situ.
Query: By what decisive brush stroke factor do you see how the correct conclusion leans toward 'in situ' rather than 'prior to installation'?
Is this where you tell me M. Snape's 'expert' opinion tells us so?
Academic status = axiom?
Get real. A brush stroke's artistic properties cannot be used to determine when/where a drawing was created. M. Snape seems to think a brush stroke's artistic properties can, meaning, he thinks his opinion says so, meaning, his 'expert' status is supposed to be the standard by which the conclusion holds merit. Are you all out of your minds? I mean, really.
What about the non-existing drips of paint? If it was 'in situ' because paint drips say so, then the paint should be dripping/running on the entire cartouche and its characters. What do we in fact observe? No drips or runs. Not vertical, not slanted, not horizontal. NONE. Not hidden in a crack, enveloped in photographic pixelation. Right out in the open. With this factual observation (no expert needed, just anyone with EYES) it can be concluded a drip/run scenario is in error. Plain and simple. To claim otherwise (knowing the drip/run theory is in error) could be taken as premeditated fraud.
The only thing no drips/runs can tell us is the paint may have been highly viscous, or it was painted when the block was in such a position as not to allow for drips/runs (even with low viscosity). If the former holds true, then M. Snape is in error because if he sees drips/runs, then the paint was of low viscosity at the time of application which would mean the cartouche and characters should show obvious signs of dripping/running. If the latter holds true then cartouche was painted prior to installation.
Either way, M. Snape's observations are in error, error, error. He is forcing his conclusion when none can even exist.
> > There is no decisive conclusion that can drawn
> > from the observation. Capiche? Snape's
> > observations are nothing more than illusions
> > to appear noteworthy. Creighton tries to add
> > weight to them by claiming Snape is an
> > It is misappropriation of academic input - pure
> > and simple.
> If you believe that no decisive conclusion can be
> drawn from characterizing the paint strokes, what
> do you believe constitutes decisive evidence that
> the cartouche was painted at the time of
In answer to your question 'what I believe constitutes decisive evidence it was painted at the time of construction' is easy: Vyse was the first to enter since construction.
The rest of the story is a fraudulent invention by Zecharia Sitchin as a tool to fill in the holes of his alien theories.
Hope these answer your questions.