> > While Femano carries on trying to cook up some
> > bogus controversy, it’s actually not so clear at
> > this point what exactly his loop-di-loop
> > conspiracy theory is.
> > M.
> I don't understand why you to keep harping on the
> "Vyse made it up" notion as if that's the only
> bandwagon I'm focusing on. When did I last suggest
> the crate was empty or contained no stone box or
> that the G3 box never existed? How many
> weeks/months ago? How many times did I say that?
Where do I harp on the “Vyse made it up” notion? Nowhere in the post you’re answering.
Regardless of which and as an entirely separate question, is this not in truth part of what you’re saying? That Vyse made things up? That he made “bogus” statements? (For which see below.)
> The record repeatedly shows that I've included
> such a "conspiracy" as only one of several
> possibilities, another being that the ship made an
> undocumented stop at Livorno to sell the thing in
> a private transaction (I think Jon first hinted at
> that possibility in this discussion), another is
> that the stone box drawn by Andrews was not
> original equipment in G3, another is that it
> wasn't nearly as ornate or intact as Andrews'
> drawings would lead us to presume, another was
> that the data is so contradictory that we simply
> do not know with certainty what happened, another
> was that Vyse's narrative might actually be
> In any case, looking strictly at the corroborative
> evidence discussed in these current GHMB
> discussions, there apparently is
> zero official record of what was
> inside that crate, and for whatever reason,
> no one outside Vyse's team is on
> record as verifying the existence of that stone
> box. And so we must consider all of the
> possibilities that fit the current (lack of)
> evidence, not just what Vyse's fandom insists
> happened on the basis of the non-verifiable
> narrative that emerged from his inner circle.
Which merely goes to illustrate what I said about your positivism going right out of the window just as soon it suits you.
> And yes, Vyse's claim that basalt is "brittle" or
> somehow "easy" to damage in any practical sense is
> bogus, especially since the granite box in G1
> apparently exhibited far greater damage than
> anything reported by Vyse about his G3 box.
> Meanwhile, the fact that the BM acknowledges that
> it has a small fragment of basalt that Vyse
> claimed is a piece of Menkaure's sarcophagus, but
> that the Museum currently feels the need to
> withhold any photo of that piece and not include
> it on display while it does include
> photos of far more common casing stones adds fuel
> to the notion that perhaps the BM is reluctant to
> present that fragment of basalt as being
So your brilliant idea is that Vyse knowingly made false statements which any passing geologist or mineralogist could promptly have exposed?
Given your evident inability to follow even what other people are saying, you will understand if I doubt that you have any useful insight into what Vyse (who was not a geologist or mineralogist) knew or believed about the characteristics of basalt and (hence) the bona fides of what he said about it. It was not unknown in works of the period for basalt to be described as “brittle”:
We’ve seen before your conspiracist drivel about museums “withholding” what they don’t consider suitable for display and haven’t got round to photographing. Funny how this same museum should even so much as admit the existence of the piece.
Still awaiting with interest your transcript of FO 926/8.