> ...will be out there in print for the whole world to
> see and judge; if he is exposed as a fool, it will
> no doubt be party time on here.
What sometimes happens in such cases is that a small number of the more tenuous points are blown out of proportion by the traditionalists, while all of the other excellent points based on hard physical evidence are therefore summarily discarded on the twisted basis of "guilty by association", and orthodoxy will run a smear campaign. It's a very common pattern. Chris Dunn's book on ancient technology would be harder to find fault with had he left out his megamachine chapter at the end with his 30' diameter circular saw blade and bulldozers which have been cited to discredit his entire thesis. Traditionalists tried to discredit Piazzi Smyth by labeling him a "pyramidiot" for his religious interpretation of G1 despite his excellent survey data. Likewise for the Edgar brothers' excellent discussion of G1.
In any book of this nature, where speculation is necessarily part of the hypothesis due to all the unknowns (and unknowns certainly run amok in the Vyse narrative), there will be facts presented that are based on solid evidence that cannot easily be disputed. These facts must be acknowledged. They cannot be neutralized by other more speculative non-evidenced contentions that merely support, but are not pivotal to, the conclusions.
For example, if Scott makes statements about anecdotal reports of surviving descendents of Vyse's team or of what might have been a preliminary (at the time of publication) report of the chemical analysis of paint samples which might end up being more speculative (or "soft") based on reports that there wasn't enough sample to analyze, that doesn't neutralize what we actually see up there in the rafters. Rather, the method used to draw that cartouche, the paint runs that seem obvious in Dowell's high def photos, the smudges and scrapes on the blocks that indicate sloppy attempts at removing smears of plaster and paint within a 19th century low-light condition, the refusal of the SCA to further investigate those glyphs, the tussle with Caviglia just before the great "discovery", the mystery of the fate of G3's sarcophagus, all speak to the greater mystery.
Whether it can ever actually be resolved definitively is doubtful, short of a smoking gun document waiting to be found in the crpyts of a museum. But as long as the mystery remains unresolved, further investigation and discussion is warranted.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10-May-16 13:21 by Origyptian.