Morten: ...how can one mark indicate the veracity of another if there are both fake and genuine marks in the chamber?
SC: Genuine marks are almost certainly those that Vyse writes about in his private journal, (discovered upon his second visit) on the east wall of Wellington's Chamber (which Perring subsequently drew). Those specific marks were clearly within that chamber as Vyse writes about them afterwards.
So those specific marks on the east wall of Wellington's I think we can accept as genuine. And this is (indirectly) corroborated by Walter Allen's logbook entry which states:
"...faint marks were repainted, some were new."
However, almost everything else, imo, is suspect because many of these painted marks present anomalies (from various sources of evidence) that are not easily explained away.
EDIT TO ADD: And, as I have oft stated - if just ONE mark in those chambers is found to have been fraudulently placed then it automatically calls everything therein into question (excepting those already accepted as genuine from other evidence e.g. Vyse's private journal).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15-Feb-19 14:43 by Scott Creighton.