> Let’s see:
> “...tied to only one piece of evidence: the
> crudely painted marks [note plural]. . . high
> definition photos of the actual marks [note
> plural]. . . and why the marks [note plural] were
> faked. . . orthography of the quarry marks [note
Yes, let’s see:
“. . . tied to only one piece [note singular] of evidence: the crudely painted marks [note plural] within the pyramid’s hidden chambers that refer to the Fourth Dynasty king Khufu . . . high definition photos [note plural] of the actual marks [note plural] . . . and why the marks [note plural] were faked . . . He investigates the anomalous and contradictory orthography of the quarry marks [sic] [note plural] through more than 75 photos and illustrations, showing how they radically depart from the established canon of quarry marks [sic] from this period. . . .”
The blurb-writer’s warrant for calling the several names of Khufu “only one piece of evidence” is obscure, as when it comes to the question of “authenticity”, you deal with them separately. You have to, as you have committed yourself to this position:
“For the avoidance of doubt, it's my view, and always has been [sic], that there are some marks in these 'Vyse Chambers' that I believe are probably genuine and others that are probably not so. We just have to figure out which is which.”
—and you have to do that as you have committed yourself to Walter Allen’s logbook statement: “Faint marks were repainted, some were new.”
And let’s just remember that it is Walter Allen’s statement and not Humphries Brewer’s. As Greg has reminded you and I told you in 2013, you do not have “the eye-witness testimony of Humphries Brewer”. So why is this in the blurb?
“He examines recent chemical analysis of the marks along with the eye-witness testimony of Humphries Brewer, who worked with Vyse at Giza in 1837 and saw forgery take place.”
—when (a) you do not have such testimony and (b) you know perfectly well that what you do have describes no such event?
As for the “high definition photos” (note plural!) “of the actual marks” (note plural!), what you present is some details of one photo of part of one mark: the cartouche of Khufu. Only thing beyond that (which you do not mention yourself) is the photo by Dominique Görlitz of the damage he did.
What of this?
“He investigates the anomalous and contradictory orthography of the quarry marks through more than 75 photos and illustrations, . . .”
Having read that, the reader might reasonably expect more than two (2) photos of the marks in question.
Enough for now.
Edited 2019-02-15 to grey some words.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15-Feb-19 12:53 by Martin Stower.