CM: As far as can be judged from the form in which it is reproduced, the (photocopied) logbook entry, despite its October 1954 date, doesn't resemble, say, a ship's log, where each entry follows after the previous one in chronological order. This particular item in Allen's logbook could have been written at any time. Or, theoretically, at least, part of it could have been written at one time, and other parts added at other times.
SC: So now the inference is that Walter Allen was a fraudster and made it all up? Why would he do that? Do you have any proof of that? You do realise that even without the Brewer/Allen testimony, Tricky-Dicky's journal, with regard to the discovery of the inscriptions, remains in no less a questionable position. Do we then have the 'word' of two liars/fraudsters? It's possible (though I personally doubt it). So, how do you propose the truth of the situation might be determined - what's your thoughts on that? How might this cloud of uncertainty be removed? Would it not seem sensible to go to the original, primary source i.e. the inscriptions themselves and try to scientifically verify their authenticity?
Post Edited (20-May-13 11:10)