> cladking wrote:
> > Martin Stower wrote:
> > > Any why is there no detail? Why, if Humphries was so
> > > heroically indignant about what he’d seen did he not
> > > 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?
Vyse was the first into the chambers, was he not. Perhaps everyone was simply relying on his cataloging of the marks and he discarded his old notes after making the changes.