> Hello All,
> Question: What exactly needs to be done to
> establish once and for all whether or not this
> infamous cartouche is a fake?
> Question: Are digital photographs of the cartouche
> really of any use beyond showing us in sharp
> detail what it looks like?
What exactly needs to be done to establish once and for all whether or not the infamous Shroud of Turin is a fake?
You see the problem?
We know that 14C tests were done and we know that diehard Shroudies found ways of dismissing them. Why would this case be any different? Why would people who think Vyse was a liar—who are more than halfway to denouncing the entirety of “Egyptology” as a lucrative fraud—whose “thinking” is riddled with conspiracism—accept what a lab says? We’d be told that the sampling was done improperly, or the samples were switched, or the result was down to contamination, or the lab was in on it, or something like this:
“Vyse found a cache of ancient Egyptian paint. He broke the vessels containing it and had Hill and Raven pound the dried-up paint into powder. Then they added the purest water they could find (distilled) and used the resulting paint for the forgery.”
Your question presupposes an interested community with standards in common. There is no such community.
The only thing driving these calls for tests is the forgery idea. Those who think like this already are the people on Earth least likely to accept results which contradict their preconceptions: the option of crying “conspiracy!” is already built into their thinking. Give this lot their way and they would test and test and test until there is nothing left. As we have seen already, people like this need to be kept away from the pyramids (and note how consistently they excuse what Görlitz and Erdmann did).
As long as they have use for it, people will find “reasons” to believe in the “Vyse forgery”.