> Really? I must have missed that in my one time,
> one session, speed read of his HOAX.
> How did he fill in 2-3 pages of "examines" - non
> existent chemical analysis?
> (Warwick if you have the book can you elaborate a
The fuss and bother in the book is a claim that the character sampled (it was just one character and just one part of that character) was painted on mortar or plaster and not on limestone.
Having seen Görlitz’s “sampling” procedure (YouTube video which I saved before it was taken down), I am not impressed. Specifically, Görlitz took a chisel to the character (which is, wait for it, a depiction of a chisel). His actions are conspicuouly hurried.
The character “sampled” was (and is) right next to some mortar and we can see that mortar was slopped over some of the inscription, obscuring it. I would not be at all surprised if Görlitz got some of it into his “sample”.
Görlitz inter alia did not take the proper steps to avoid organic contamination.
We do not have the report of the Institut Fresenius and so we do not have the quantitative data. Creighton would have us rely on the say-so of Görlitz.
Also (understatement) we do not know ancient Egyptian site procedure. We do not know that the block would or could have been kept clinically clean before the mark was painted on it. The idea that these marks were literally quarry marks is defunct (so Creighton fixates on it). They seem to be more to do with assigning the blocks to groups of workers known as (plural) aperu, who worked at specific locations—so a way of specifying on-site where a block should go.