> Gorlitz claims that he and Erdmann did not take a
> sample from the Khufu cartouche but from a
> separate graffiti.
Initial claims coming from the Erdmann/Görlitz camp were that the cartouche had been sampled, whereas the footage shows Görlitz sampling a partial ˤpr name some way to the right of the cartouche, on a different block, while the photographic image shows the same location.
> It appears that a piece of the Khufu cartouche has
> been removed prior to 2006, most probably for
> testing, but no results have ever been published
> likely due to legal ramifications.
There are certainly signs of some of the paint having been removed.
> Therefore, Creighton's case relies on "evidence"
> which is not prima facie. He may wave the Case
> Closed banner, all he likes, but the charade which
> he is perpetrating upon the public is so
> transparent, it places him on shaky legal ground.
A parsing problem. This I suppose is how they would try to get round it:
“Examines [NP recent chemical analysis of the marks] and [NP high-definition photos] to reveal errors and other anomalies within the forged Khufu cartouche”
But certainly a suggestion that both noun phrases relate to the question of the cartouche, which Creighton should not be saying, as he has committed himself to Walter Allen's “Faint marks were repainted, some were new”—so each mark must be considered separately and inference from mark a to mark b is disallowed.
This is why those advocating “testing” are necessarily advocating “sampling” the Khufu cartouche itself, as nothing else would do within the “forgery” problematic.
Edited 2019-02-11 to move a sentence to where it better fits the sequence of the argument.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11-Feb-19 11:35 by Martin Stower.