> Oh, your counter-'argument' (your fantasy history)
> is a busted flush.
Mere huffing and puffing.
You are projecting wildly. You are making stuff up which isn’t even open to being supported by evidence.
> The simple fact is, Stower, all the necessary info
Which is merely your usual “fact” bluster. Simple fact is, when you use the word, what follows is reliably not simple and not a fact—but, we see the word “necessary”, so what follows is a rigorous proof, yes?
> that could have permitted Vyse (yes, had he read
> it) to believe that the Suphis cartouche
> (Rosellini #2) and the SenSuphis cartouche
> (Rosellini #3) probably belonged to the same
> person (as a nomen and prenomen) was already in
> the public domain in 1832. This simply
> cannot be disputed. I am not arguing here that
> this did actually occur for it is unlikely that
> such could ever actually be proved - merely
> pointing out that such a conclusion was entirely
> within the reach of anyone reading Wilkinson and
> Rosellini in 1832. That is all.
“This simply cannot be disputed” is mere dogmatism. It can very much be disputed. We see here mere handwaving, mere unverifiable speculation, as you know perfectly well:
“I am not arguing here that this did actually occur for it is unlikely that such could ever actually be proved[.]” Of course not—but you will accept “could have” as an ersatz, and carry on as if it had been proven. You know you can’t prove it, so you lower the bar for yourself, and you’ve set it so low that it’s lying in a trench.
Look at it: “. . . could have permitted . . . believe . . . probably . . .” It’s a vagary.
If “such a conclusion” really was “entirely within the reach of anyone reading Wilkinson and Rosellini”, you could point to some of these “anyones” who verifiably reached it. Can you?
And again, if Vyse reached it, all he needed to do to gain kudos was to show off his knowledge. His supposed motivation for forgery crumbles.
Go through the history of science with hindsight and you can say that all kinds of people had “all the necessary info” and “could have” made their discoveries earlier. It’s not how it works.
> Get over it.
Mere huffing and puffing again.