Quote

SC: So now the inference is that Walter Allen was a fraudster and made it all up?

CM: If you re-read what I posted, you'll realise that what I'm saying is that there can be problems, and unanswered questions, when dealing with this sort of document.

SC: No one doubts there are problems but the problems are not limited to the 'word/testimony' of Brewer/Allen - they apply equally to the 'word/testimony' of Howard-Vyse. So, how do we try and find an answer to the "unanswered questions" these 'testimonies' present? Given that the parties involved have all departed this mortal coil and are unavailable to provide any answers to any further questions, do you not think we have to now look beyond the testimonies of BOTH Brewer/Allen and Howard-Vyse, to go to the source material itself, i.e. the inscriptions?

Quote

SC: Why would he do that? Do you have any proof of that?

CM: These questions go beyond what I discussed in my previous post, in which - to repeat - I merely pointed out the potential problems with this sort of document.

SC: No - that is just a copout. We're all aware of the problems such 'testimonies' present. You are keen to point out that the 'testimony' that the Brewer/Allen document presents cannot (yet) be verified. That doesn't mean it is wrong or that it does not present us with the truth. Why are you reluctant to consider as a possiblity that this Brewer/Allen 'testimony' presents the truth?

Quote

SC: 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?

CM: I think what would be even more sensible would be to consider very carefully the various historical contexts under discussion, and the various historical materials available to us, and see what might be gathered from that exercise.

SC: You can couch your words or frame them in any way you like, but you have essentially said (above) what I am already advocating - "...to consider very carefully ... the various historical materials available to us, and see what might be gathered from that exerceise." Do you not think a very careful consideration of the historical materials available to us should also include a forensic scientific consideration of the actual primary evidence, i.e. the inscriptions?

SC



Post Edited (20-May-13 14:29)