> Martin Stower wrote:
> > Any why is there no detail? Why, if Humphries was so
> > heroically indignant about what he’d seen did he not document
> > it?
> Is there some reason to believe he had a photographic memory?
The character of the claim:
“Faint marks were repainted, some were new.”
That’s a story about someone noticing detail — noticing that marks had appeared where none had been before and (requiring a yet more subtle grasp of detail) noticing that some marks were clearer than they had been before.
It’s all about detail. Why no documentation of the detail?