WLN: But Scott's next sentence begins with..."There is little doubt then, "
SC: Because their test result found calcium sulphate when it should have found calcium carbonate. Why was no calcium carbonate found in the sample? THAT'S the point.
You can see here the small paint sample removed (in the yellow circle):
(Image: Dominique Gorlitz)
Compare with Dr Colette Dowell's image of the same area:
(Image: Dr Colette Dowell)
Looks to me like Gorlitz took away the surface paint of that small area and whatever the sub-surface happened to be. And, according to Gorlitz, when analysed, that subsurface was found to be calcium sulphate when it should have been calcium carbonate. So, even if the sample was somehow compromised with surrounding plaster, where did the calcium carbonate go? THAT'S the point. THAT'S the anomaly here.
So yes - there is no doubt in my mind that there's something very peculiar with these results.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10-Feb-19 18:40 by Scott Creighton.