> So then, perhaps it really was a 'stain' after all
> and not just a flash artifact.
Is candle wax considered a stain or just candle wax? Regardless, if the flash made the candle wax unnaturally white giving it an unusual appearance after exposure then I would say it was indeed a "flash artifact".
But quite interesting to go to the source:
Great Pyramid Passages 1910. P246-251. They explain in detail the difficulty in taking adequate pictures in the KC having to resort to exploding magnesium powder which was so intense they had to shut their eyes and put their hands over their ears. Many negatives were spoiled by light fanning out in front of the lens which they had to retake the pictures. Interesting that he says nothing of this "waterfall" with the only point of interest is that the top of the shaft is in line with the top of the passage. And the lady's name in the picture is "Grace".
We have one poor quality B&W photograph that shows the stain as an unmistakable technicolor white:
It sticks out like a sore thumb to the point of being highly unusual. But as I noted before, though Edgar comments specifically on taking this photo and what we are seeing in the photo, not to mention comments on both shafts and photos of the shafts, says nothing of the "stain". The Edgars, as was Rutherford who other pictures are credited to, were hard core religious pyramidologists carrying on the work of Piazzi Smyth in which the only point of their work was to "document" the "divine plan" of G1. Did they not think G1 was built before the Great Flood? Why would they not see these "water stains" as evidence of such and hold them high as "undeniable proof"? And yet this glowing white "water stain" is of no interest to them?
Again, or anyone else for that matter as it is not just the Edgars who do not notice this unusual feature staring them right in the face, but no one ever before this picture was taken and the walls were cleaned of graffiti. Nor anyone after. Sandys, Greaves, Napoleon, Caviglia, Vyse, Petrie, ect, ect all stood right there examining the shaft and wall in detail yet none of them noticed it? Caviglia was the one who tore up the south shaft and excavated the exterior shafts and someone in relatively modern times breached the northern shaft 8ft past the opening from the ante chamber and excavated for a whopping 30ft. If what is seen in this one photo was really there to that extent then is it not possible it is a product of the activities of any number of modern breaches? Hence why it was not worthy of anyone to mention and washed away with the same ease as the chalk graffiti?
Apparently "candle wax" wasn't worth noting afterall. And those "breaches" would seem to be the never ending parade of tour guides and explorers with their candles and magnesium wires.
I wonder if the candles were made out of bat guano? Or maybe millennia old limestone mud? Hmmm.