> Origyptian Wrote:
> > it from any partisan positioning, e.g., "We
> > have no idea where that sample came from or how
> > was collected. We only assessed the composition
> > that sample". At least that's a logical way
> > for them to preserve their standing. Unless, of
> > course, they have reason to vouch for the
> > which would surprise me.
> If blind testing protocol had been observed, which
> I should think is the norm for an established and
> respected lab being commissioned to carry out a
> chemical analyses without prejudice. Then I would
> have thought that the origin of the sample would
> have been of little or no interest whatsoever.
> As you state there would be no reason for the lab
> to vouch for the sample. Their professional duty
> would be to provide an accurate chemical analyses
> and no more.
> The Egyptian courts and legal authorities have
> already firmly established that the sample did
> indeed originate in G1.
> Otherwise there would be no case to answer.
For that matter, how do we know that the lads didn't pull a switcheroo and buy a tube of red ochre paint at the local art supply store and send that to SGS?
Perhaps only they know for sure.
Frankly, if there is no way for them to adequately authenticate the sample that SGS analyzed, they may be better off keeping the details of the results to themselves rather than open up the results to public debate.
Call me skeptical about the Vyse "discovery", but I'm also objective when it comes to data analysis, and there currently are way too many unanswered questions about the SGS sample at this juncture.
If the SGS analysis will be compared to known ancient red ochre paint, what ancient paint sample is that?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?