> Loveritas: I wouldn't be surprised if you
> and your publisher aren't sued for deceptive
> conduct for engaging in false and misleading
> advertising with respect to the non existent
> chemical analysis and high definition photos you
> claimed were in your book.
> Chemical analysis - see HOAX p.139-141.
> Hi-res images - see HOAX p.129, 136, 186.
On chemical analysis, we get “Görlitz says”. We do not get the report of the Institut Fresenius.
On “high-definition photos”, on 129 and 136, we get sections chopped out of the one photo by Patrick Chapuis, festooned with your editorial additions, while in the text the rebuttals you received on this board go unmentioned.
Page 186 is a hoot and even more a hoot is your invoking it here, as it seems you have yet to twig the connection between what it shows—detail enlarged—and the instruction to Raven and Hill which you imagine you see in Vyse’s journal. It’s the same text. Vyse noted what Hill had painted in Campbell’s Chamber.
Even funnier is that in 2016 Jason Colavito spotted this independently of me, on no other basis than HOAX itself:
Readers may wish also to see my notes in the comments section.
If our telling you this repeatedly has got through, it is passing strange that you should wish to draw attention to the image, which in any case shows a notation made in 1837 and so does not exemplify the bullet-point claim in the blurb:
“Examines recent chemical analysis of the marks and high-definition photos to reveal errors and other anomalies within the forged Khufu cartouche”
What exactly are the “errors and other anomalies” supposedly revealed in the photo (singular) by Patrick Chapuis of the Khufu cartouche?
It doesn’t get any better on closer examination.
Edited 2019-02-17 to grey some words.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17-Feb-19 17:52 by Martin Stower.