Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It’s also
> possible (just to be clear on the logic of the
> case) that he sampled both: showing him sampling
> one graffito is no proof that he didn’t sample
> another—but, given the small size of the sample,
> I’m inclined to go with the simpler explanation,
> that he sampled just the one.

According to the logic of the case, where is there a possibility that he sampled Khufu's cartouche? Didn't the legal proceedings firmly conclude that there are no additional sample scratch marks on that cartouche compared to what is shown on the photographs shot by Dr. Dowell before Görlitz visited that chamber?


> What I do not accept is the attempt by Femano (and
> apparently others) to place all of the blame for
> apparent misreporting (in the early publicity for
> Das Cheops Projekt) on Frank Höfer. This I
> regard as absurd and unconscionable. I mean, come
> on: how difficult is it in this day and ago for
> someone in one country to run copy past someone in another?

In that case, do you believe it was Göelitz, or was it Erdmann, who approved the caption to the photo in the news.com.au article which claims Görlitz is pointing to Khufu's cartouche when he is really pointing to a different set of glyphs? What second set of eyes among the team approved this:

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22-May-16 00:01 by Origyptian.