Loveritas: . . .this highly promoted
> chemical analysis which, if it dates to the 19th
> Century, is a slam dunk for your claims.
> SC: You have yourself stated the importance of
> this chemical analysis.
He is referring to dating chemical analysis!
>It proves the marks in
> this area of Campbell’s Chamber are painted onto
> a layer of plaster (which is a reasonable
> indicator that the cartouche itself may also be
> painted onto a layer of plaster). So answer me
> this question: accepting that the 'lesser' marks
> in are indeed painted onto a layer of plaster then
> it seems likely that this painting would have been
> done in-situ. Why would the scribe paint these
> marks onto the in-situ roof block sideways?
> Perhaps because the scribe didn’t do that and it
> was done much more recently by Vyse & Co and
> painted sideways to merely give the
> illusion that it was painted outwith the
> chamber (ergo must therefore be genuine). And if
> Vyse & Co could fake those (relatively)
> insignificant marks, do you seriously consider
> that it would have been beyond him to fake the
> much more important cartouche? Seriously? Indeed,
> if the cartouche was already in the chamber, why
> would he even feel the need to fake the
> 'lesser' marks at all?
> That’s the importance of the chemical analysis,
> Loveritas. It proves the marks are on a layer of
> plaster which is highly unlikely to have occurred
> outside the chamber.
At risk (certainty)of restating the obvious:
There is no chemical analysis provided, nor have or could you "examined" it.
By your own admission you have merely second-hand repeated hearsay!
You were apparently told by a convicted fraudulent vandal with no respect for authority , who has been proven to deceive before , that there is some claimed "chemical analysis".
If such exists somewhere , who (which laboratory) conducted it? Why do you not, would you not, publish such, instead of asking readers to believe your deceitful speculation and conjuring?
Further it proves absolutely nothing.
Calcium Sulphate and Gypsum is a natural precipitate from limestone. It is evidenced in limestone blocks all over the Giza plateau. It does not necessarily mean plaster. That would be difficult to demonstrate even with a detailed physical and proper chemical examination of the "mark" or broad area in question.
A miniscule spec of Calcium Sulphate (if true?) is your proof! ROFL!
You are the Charlatan.
Innuendo, speculation, unsupported claims and hearsay.
Further you expect the reader to swallow the codswallop of Vyse & Co to go to extreme lengths to disguise some imaginary RISKY fraud, of things they could not read in many chambers. However, at the same time would be foolish enough ( despite no one else in the history of Egyptology to suspect plaster), that Vyse RISKED mixing up a brew of man made plaster (presumably to smooth an unsuitable area ?) to make a relatively inconsequential rendering of a phyle name.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Feb-19 21:25 by Corpuscles.