Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The opposing argument has been that Vyse couldn't
> possibly have known what glyphs to use. That isn't
> true. By itself, this is not reason to suspect.
The opposing argument has never been this. That man of straw is your invention.
It’s perfectly clear (and always has been) from Birch’s comments that neither of the cartouche names was previously unknown. You think I didn’t read this in my first half hour with Vyse’s book?
The opposing argument has been among other things that Vyse-qua-forger didn’t use “glyphs” at all, but an early cursive script which was not well known to the experts of the time, let alone to someone like Vyse, who was ahead of you only in not “knowing” so much which isn’t so.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The opposing argument has been that Vyse couldn't
> possibly have known what glyphs to use. That isn't
> true. By itself, this is not reason to suspect.
The opposing argument has never been this. That man of straw is your invention.
It’s perfectly clear (and always has been) from Birch’s comments that neither of the cartouche names was previously unknown. You think I didn’t read this in my first half hour with Vyse’s book?
The opposing argument has been among other things that Vyse-qua-forger didn’t use “glyphs” at all, but an early cursive script which was not well known to the experts of the time, let alone to someone like Vyse, who was ahead of you only in not “knowing” so much which isn’t so.
M.
