> You’ve offered a conjecture on the character of the lines. As
> stated, I do not find this conjecture plausible, in a context
> where Vyse clearly was deliberately drawing lines in circles —
> and I’m not seeing evidence which would make me think
> otherwise. Evidence of tendency would be such evidence. Do
> you see that I’m leaving a space for such evidence and not just
> dismissing the idea outright?
I have offered an analysis of what I can clearly see as common artifacts consistently produced by drawing these objects quickly in a certain manner. It is not a matter of opinion, but the physics of drawing certain objects in certain ways consistently reproducible by anyone with a pen and a piece of paper. As I said, I have been doing pen and ink line art for almost 40yrs-I know what I am seeing and am well versed in the unique subtle nuances of using the types of pen Vyse used. My conclusion, and why, is not only "plausible", but the most probable explanation which admittedly is based solely on the art itself regardless of the subject which includes the circle's innocuous placement on the page compared to the others. I suggest having it examined by a handwriting expert not because I have doubt, but rather to eliminate doubt by introducing an objective 3rd party accredited professional. I could spend the time to break down and diagram each of Vyse's drawings line by line and reproduce each of them and I have no doubt you would dismiss it just because it is me doing it.
The "context" and "evidence" are the lines themselves, not the face value abstract grouping of all the circles as one.
You obviously have a lot invested in the topic, including your running feud with Scott, which if you are being honest with yourself understandably limits your objectivity. For your own sake I would recommend reevaluating your rigidity regarding this circle and protect yourself by at least cautiously accepting it may in fact be as I have described.
But if it is a circle with a dot-so what? This does not disprove Khufu built G1 no more so than a circle with 3 lines proves he did. If Vyse did fake it-so what? The joke is on him. All this attention is given to this one cartouche yet the other nearly 2 dozens lines of writing in the relieving chambers are ignored, which is ridiculous to me regardless of which side of the argument one is on, but more importantly, regardless of the greater context this would provide, as a whole what they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is that these chambers were assembled/repaired at a time when hieroglyphic writing existed in Egypt which ultimately indisputably gives a date range of at least the chambers. Coupled with the markings in the "air shafts" this even further dates construction up to the point of the use of red ochre paint.
Considering how many times this subject has gone round and round, the same things repeated over and over again with the same players all the while ignoring the most basic common sense context which I note above, I can only conclude the allure of this subject isn't actually the truth but rather the pointless life draining ad nauseum arguing itself.