Jon Ellison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It goes on to say that "The detailed analyses are
> still pending".
> Interesting to note that it says "not commonly
> known, iron oxide colours of the Egyptians.
> Does this refer to just ancient Egyptians or 19th
> century or both?
> Is it saying the colour is of foreign origin,
> irrespective of age?

You may wish to note that Görlitz later referred to the sample as “the red ochre sample from the paint in the Great Pyramid”:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?2,645544,645624#msg-645624

A level of uncertainty about what exactly he is saying would be natural.

Also my comment of November 2013:

http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?6,580469,581263#msg-581263

Quote

They seem now to be claiming that the pigment is not iron oxide, or does not match the iron oxide used by the ancient Egyptians (or something like that): . . .

An odd point to cite pro-forgery, in that forgery claimants from Sitchin on have emphasised that pigments of this type would have been readily available to the alleged forgers, as Perring and Vyse both remarked that the same composition of red ochre (called “moghrah” in Arabic) was still in use in the quarries. Had they been forgers, surely they would have used it.

M.