Do you really think that people are so dumb as to fall for this sidestep?
Ok. Let's unpack this mendacity.
The text clearly says,"the mystery of the Khufu cartouche." Not markings close by, or any other markings in the chamber. It specifies one cartouche and one cartouche only - the Khufu cartouche.
Ironically, the blurb finishes with "a must read book for all seekers of truth."
Nowhere does the book blurb specifically state "...chemical analysis of the Khufu cartouche..." as you claim above.
No, it doesn't specifically state that the chemical analysis is of the Khufu cartouche. That's the whole point. That's the deception. That's the false and misleading statement. "He examines recent chemical analysis of the marks." And you knew that!
You knew that you DID NOT HAVE any chemical analysis of the Khufu cartouche because (a) it doesn't exist, or, (b) it's not available to you.
But the average consumer browsing through the bookstore reads the blurb and is MISLED into thinking that this highly promoted chemical analysis which, if it dates to the 19th Century, is a slam dunk for your claims.
Surely, you can't honestly expect the readers to believe that you really meant that the chemical analysis, as advertised in the blurb, was of a completely different graffiti?
Using evidence from the time of the discovery of these “quarry marks”--including surveys, facsimile drawings and Vyse’s private field notes--along with high definition photos of the actual marks,
So, when you stated that you were including "high definition photos of the actual marks, were you referring to secondary marks quite apart from the cartouche? If you were, this again is misleading the consumer. If you were referring to the Gorlitz marks, then why didn't you make this clear instead of attempting to induce the consumer into buying your book by means of a misleading statement?
If you doubt the findings presented in HOAX of the chemical analysis of this mark then there is little I can do about that other than to suggest, if you can, find a way to get your own chemical analysis done.
I am not interested in the findings of the chemical analysis. I couldn't care less. It's irrelevant. It's your misleading statements in the blurb which are the focus of my attention.
The rest of the blurb further confirms the deception.
I am not desisting from anything. You appealed to all seekers of truth. Now you've got one.
This whole hoax thing is really a non-starter for me. Even if the cartouche is a forgery, it will not change the true history of Egypt, as you claim.
My viewpoint is that the methods whereby you attempt to persuade the book buying public into purchasing your book equate to deceptive conduct. If you had just been honest and written the book asking questions about this chapter in Antiquarian history and not tried to fool the public into believing that you had definite proof (the chemical analysis of the Khufu cartouche), but did have have other evidence - even if not prima facie - I wouldn't have bothered to start this thread.
But you didn't. And you still are maintaining your innocence.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Feb-19 05:00 by Barbelo.