Before session, outside the courtroom in the ongoing case of Creigton v Vyse, could be heard the strains of Van Morrison as he sang in esoteric tones :
"Yeats and Lady Gregory corresponded . . .
And James Joyce wrote streams of consciousness books . . .
T.S. Eliot chose England . . .
T.S. Eliot joined the ministry . . .
Did you ever hear about . . .
Wordsworth and Coleridge?
Smokin' up in Kendal
They were smokin' by the lakeside . . ."
bringing an air of conviviality to proceedings.
The gallery in an upbeat mood had heard on the grapevine that today Creighton's team was finally going to deliver hard evidence.
"About time," remarked one elderly chap with wispy, white hair.
Seemingly a tad warmish under his pompous headpiece the judge looked as if he would rather be dipping his little tootsies into the briny down at beautiful Blackpool.
But, placing a more serious note on matters, the judge reminded counsel for the plaintiff that the claim by Creighton was that the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber is said to be a forgery, and it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that, beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the case, and to cease all the twaddle.
The Professor looked a little pale at hearing the judge's admonition. However, Gilligan by comparison looked as though he had just swallowed a canary. Apparently, he fancies himself as a dab hand with a camera and had been up until the wee hours preparing damning photographic evidence. Hence, the air of excitement in the gallery.
In bringing jurors up to date with the background in these proceeding, defence counsel stated that Gilligan, without any pre empting from Scott Creighton, on 24 July 2014 opened a thread on GHMB by simply stating:
Scott Craighton has published an article in Atlantis Rising. Explaining his rationale for the Vyse forgery..
The gallery knew that he wasn't in on it because he can't even spell Creighton's name correctly.
Even though Gilligan had provided no link and Creighton hadn't even responded to Gilligan, the Professor lovingly replied to Creighton:
Love the last sentence, Scott. I, too, love to point out such ironic twists to traditional thought such as how they got it all wrong about the granite plugs in G1. Great minds... Well done, Scott.
Creighton, not known for his proficiency in spelling either, replied:
Hi Jon and Philip, Thanks for your comemnts. Glad you enjoyed the new article in A.R. magazine.
To finish off the little love fest and to prove that he obviously can't spell, Gilligan cooed:
Audry if you are American can you please run for the presidency. And after that you can be Queen over here ..
Opening argument centred around the testimony of witness Corpuscles who cast doubt upon the professionalism of the plaintiff's claim as to the authenticity of the cartouche.
Without giving Corpuscles any time to answer each accusation he was bombarded with:
"Did they "inspect" with so much as a cheap magnifying glass and bright flashlight? NO
Did they notice the pencil lines? NO Did they notice all the paint spots? NO
Did they notice that the cartouche ring doesn't go behind the side wall? NO
Did they "inspect" for right handed or left handed strokes? NO
Did they make note of the direction of paint strokes? NO
Did they identify the type of brush used? NO
Did any of them write of any of the characteristics of the paint, strokes, alignment? NO
Did they bother to take close-ups that could be used for examination? NO
Did they notice the difference in thickness and color of paint? NO
Did it occur to any of them to examine below and outside of the cartouche? NO
So exactly what did all the "high profile" visitors observe?
Exactly what detail did they make note of? NONE
So how do you make an inspection without observing detail?"
Shrieks of laughter came from the gallery when this tirade, obviously meant to bolster the bumbling Professor, was followed by:
Discounted by people who have no letters after their names. Jealousy.
The defence countered this slight upon researchers who have actually inspected the cartouche firsthand, unlike our armchair experts, by quoting Dr Robert Schoch who has provided numerous images of the disputed cartouche.
Dr Schoch received a BA in Anthropology and a BS in Geology from George Washington University. He was awarded MS and PhD degrees in Geology and Geophysics from Yale University (PhD, 1983).
Schoch's PhD dissertation, was published in 1986 by the Peabody Museum of Natural History.
Dr Schoch :
counts himself as one of those who believes the cartouche is authentically ancient.
He expressed skepticism to us about the forgery charge:
“When in the chambers one can shine a light down into the cracks and see that the inscriptions continue into areas where it is inconceivable (or so everyone who has seen them agrees) that anyone could get to, even with the finest brush or tool, to fake them.
Also, the inscriptions match (in terms of pigments and techniques), as best as anyone can tell, those found in the shafts which were totally sealed until very recent times and thus are undoubtedly ancient
Although the Professor may have some letters after his name, his ignorance in matters of Ancient Egypt are revealed by the following telling remarks:
"By the way, forgive my ignorance, but who originally ordained it as "Khufu's Horus name"? The serekh simply looks like a lone G43 chick ("u") to me. Running the risk of exposing my ignorance in traditional Egyptology even further, who came up with the concept of the "Horus name", and why?
Why would it not be possible to consider the name in the cartouche to be referring to something other than a living human, such that the aprw refers to the work crew consigned by, e.g., the "Department of Defense" or "Ministry of Afterlife" to build that structure?
After that debacle Gilligan decided to step into the breach and attempted to save the day by providing the following image to the jury to prove that paint had run down the cartouche.
However, Dr Schoch states:
There has been an incredible amount of contamination in the chambers, between bat dung, people rubbing their hands on, and breathing on the inscriptions, bacterial and fungal growth over them, etc., such that any dates may well not date the original pigments but rather the modern contamination (or a combination of recent and ancient).
Witness Martin Stower provided the following image which shows no paint pooling and the cartouche disappearing behind another block.
Keeping the gallery amused was the order of the day with the following audacious statement about a funny little statue.
That statue alone screws up your history.
With the dog loudly barking in the background, the Professor gave the closing remark for the session:
Despite attempts to shoot the messenger, the message is alive and well, and it's going to continue getting louder.
"In the summertime in England
Would you meet me?
In the Church of St. John . . .
Down by Avalon . . . ."
Court is adjourned until tomorrow.