> You’re the one saying “at least once” and you’re the one painting a scenario in which
> multiple errors would be the natural expectation.
I said "at least once" simply because any objective mind must allow the possibility that other instances might be out there which neither you or I have found yet. Maybe your "logic", allows "possibility" to be twisted into "expectation", but mine does not. If you insist that I not allow that possibility, then simply change it to "once", which then means "once" is "ALL the misreporting" you're whinging about.
> All of which is a mere diversion from my key point above, that poor, overworked Höfer...
I only include Höfer because you brought him into the discussion. It makes no significant difference to me who made those mistakes (the obscure German article and the mislabeled figure). What's clear, however, is that there seems to be no record of Görlitz or Erdmann ever stating they sampled Khufu's cartouche, so you made an incorrect statement about that.
> It’s a bit like a news anchor in 1963 reporting that Jackie Kennedy had been shot.
And that would have been a mistake. The news agency obviously mixed up the facts, right? Your "news anchor" analogy only supports my position on this! If the news agency made that statement independently, this means no one of authority on the government "team" was actually trying to make us think Jackie was the one that was shot.
> And what’s with the weasel word “obscure”?
> That it’s in German?
> What makes the site obscure?
Weasel? It's obscure for everyone researching various web pages in their non-German native language which constitutes more than 94% of all web pages on planet Earth.
> “Die Untersuchung der widersprüchlichen Vyse Kartusche von 1837 in der obersten Entlastungskammer.”
> I assume that Görlitz approved this one, it being his site.
And I agree with you. "Untersuchung" does not mean "pointing to". That photo was indeed taken during his "Untersuchung" of Vyse's so-called discovery in that same chamber. But a photo of Görlitz pointing directly to the other set of glyphs and claiming he's "pointing to Khufu's cartouche" is an entirely different matter. I have little doubt that you miss the fundamental difference in such a depiction.
So let's see what other figures are on that same site:
- "Dr. Dominique Görlitz und Stefan Erdmann erforschen seit Jahren die Cheopspyramide."
(Dr. Dominique Görlitz and Stefan Erdmann focused for many years the Cheops pyramid.)
And yet they're "focusing" on a piece of basalt on the patio with the pyramid many yards behind them.
Dr. Görlitz und GF Tino Hahn bei der Inspektion im Granitwerk Blauenthal/Erzgebirge."
(Dr. Görlitz and GF Tino Hahn during the inspection in Granitwerk Blauenthal / Erzgebirge.)
He's standing about 6 or 7 feet from the closest piece of granite. Are his fingers pointing more to the saw teeth which are closer to him?
"Dr. Görlitz bei der Analyse der Granitbalken in der Königskammer der Cheopspyramide."
(Dr. Görlitz in analyzing the granite bar in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid.)
The "bar" is about 5 or 6 feet farther up the ladder.
"Die Untersuchung der widersprüchlichen Vyse Kartusche von 1837 in der obersten Entlastungskammer."
(The study of the contradictory Vyse [cartouche] of 1837 on the top relief chamber.)
And there is the Khufu cartouche, maybe 4 or 5 feet to his left in that same photo. If he turns his head slightly to the right he'll be staring right at it. The caption does not say he's "pointing" to that cartouche. It simply says he's researching the cartouche in the "top relief chamber", which he undoubtedly is. So no contradiction at all. And by the way, are we certain that he is not pointing to what he believes might be another Khufu cartouche that precedes those phyle marks in that back corner, hidden behind the wall joint?
In any case, I have no problem with any of that labeling.
And as a matter of observation, of the four photos that clearly identify Görlitz in that collection of photos, he's closest to the main "focus" of the caption in that very photo of him researching Khufu's cartouche! So once again your objection is misguided.
> I have no obligation to state beliefs which exist only in your fantasies.
I doubt anyone here is surprised by that deflection.
> Seek qualified medical help.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 31-May-16 18:25 by Origyptian.