> the image you have posted is a carved inscription of the name
> KHWFW in raised relief.
> I asked Phil to present another "graffiti" inscription (which
> you quoted me as having said) - written by hand in paint to
> give context to his use of the word "anomalous".
> It is not "anomalous" unless one has other handwritten
> inscriptions for purposes of comparison.
> Hence why I suggested his "observation" is technically without
> foundation in the absence of context.
Audrey, don't you know that all those masons with paintbrushes were bumpkins who couldn't come close to estimating the vertical center of a text stream at arm's length? I mean, just look at all the misalignments they made in those grafitti paintings with their upsidedown birds, cross-eyed humans, glyphs slanted to 45 degrees when they should be vertical or horizontal. There are PLENTY of glyphs in those rasters that are out of alignment; no need to just pick on that one helpless horned viper, even though it just happens to reside in prime real estate inside the royal cartouche while all the other less important ancillary glyphs just happen to comply with traditional rules! But that's not important now. Right? What's important is that since there is not a single other graffiti version of "Khufu", we can't prove that when you paint a horned viper freehand that maybe it SHOULD be placed that high. I mean, who cares that there happens to not be a single other painted grafitti of "Khufu" anywhere in Egypt. This singular, anomalous, controversial cartouche is obvously unquestionably authentic.