> Hi Martin
> I believe you ought congratulate T'Bird for
> promoting this fanfare.
You've been waiting for the green light to pounce on tbird.
> Meanwhile many high profile "fringe" or
> "alternative" full time professional authors and
> guides HAVE inspected the RC's and unanimously
> declare the marks and cartouches to be original to
Did they "inspect" with so much as a cheap magnifying glass and bright flashlight? NO
Did they notice the pencil lines? NO
Did they notice all the paint spots? NO
Did they notice that the cartouche ring doesn't go behind the side wall? NO
Did they "inspect" for right handed or left handed strokes? NO
Did they make note of the direction of paint strokes? NO
Did they identify the type of brush used? NO
Did any of them write of any of the characteristics of the paint, strokes, alignment? NO
Did they bother to take close-ups that could be used for examination? NO
Did they notice the difference in thickness and color of paint? NO
So exactly what did all the "high profile" visitors observe? Exactly what detail did they make note of? NONE
So how do you make an inspection without observing detail?
> Hundreds of trained professionals and thousands of
> visitors, many documentary makers, have inspected
> the cartouche since 1837 and none of them have
> reported this "runny streak" anomoly.
Did it occur to any of them to examine below and outside of the cartouche? NO
> ONLY our very own amateur provocateur with his
> delusional fantasy "HIGHER standards of
> proof" (ROFL!) has noticed (dreamt it up)
> it from staring at the interwebbys!
Oh no, where did you get this idea? Ori wasn't the only one to notice details in the cartouche. Several of us did. He doesn't get all the credit.
> It is ironic that this trash is called The
> Great Pyramid Hoax.
> The only hoax is the BS it spins! Piled
> higher and Deeper
Discounted by people who have no letters after their names. Jealousy.
> I undertand why Mainstream Egyptology would be
> outraged by such rubbish, and wonder whether our
> host GH would be annoyed that such low grade
> rubbish, could infect his market and potential
> target audience? Or is even promoted on his
> website message board?
Who do you think are buying his books? Scientists are going to make it a best seller? NO
His books are now in classrooms? NO
For the most part,average Joe buys his books.
> Let alone the implied insult to his own eye
> witness published retraction/opinion on this
His reason for retraction has been discussed and guess what.... he didn't run us all off.
> Maybe marginally acceptable for a silly stoush on
> an internet chat site... but to publish as
> "evidence"? Scrapping the very bottom of the
> barrel in desperation and disgraceful!
How dare he!! Publish a dissenting opinion!! Who does he think he is... an individual with his own opinion? You'd better set him straight. And while you're at it, lecture him on freedom of speech. Of all the nerve, wanting to write a book, you'd think he lived in a free country. He will never become "high profile" if he disagrees with the most high and doesn't kiss their butt. How stupid can you be to publish your own opinion. After all, Hancock never disagreed.