Corpuscles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Are the matters listed above in bold, the sort of
> detailed analysis Creighton commissioned in your
> report?
> Can we expect to read your full "expert analysis"
> and substantive supportive arguments for your
> conclusions?

No. It would be far better if you carried out your own analyses.
>
> If not, are you able to share the answers to these
> questions on GHMB now? Or are they "report"
> secrets contracted and not available for public
> viewing?

As above.
>
> IOW ....Is that in the book? Or don't you know
> what Creighton is putting in the book, which is
> apparently attributed by name to your independent
> research and expertise? If not, don't you
> professionally care whether SC distorts your
> expert analysis?

Once any job has been completed and passed on there is very little any originator can do to control it.



> > My "Expert" expertise was only required to make
> > people aware that this method exists..
> > Which Scott and I did.
>
> Do you or Scott really actually think that modern
> humans (readers) would not be aware that any crude
> painted scribble or writing on stone is likely to
> give some possible or likely indication of the
> direction and starting point of "brush strokes"?

I think that any modern human would be capable of determining the brush stroke sequence, once they had been made aware of it as an analytical tool. It's for this reason that I would encourage you to carry out your own analyses and draw your own conclusions.


>
> > I'm only aware of it because I have spent a
> > considerable amount of time trying to figure
> out
> > how, for example Claude Monet could make three
> > splodges of coloured sticky stuff be a dead
> ringer
> > for a Water Lily. A lot of people are quite
> > enamored by his paintings.
>
>
>
> Can you tell from a photograph whether Monet drew
> clockwise or anticlockwise or where he started and
> finished?
> Really? Where and how?

Yes.



It may be necessary to zoom in to see the crossovers, intercepts and modulation.
This is intended only as a sequence awareness guide as it has obviously been edited.
Please refer to an original photograph available online and carry out your own analyses.
A point to bear in mind is the stroke sequencing, painted horizontally vs. vertically.
How would you begin if you were painting horizontally vs. vertically?








>
> Would you need a higher resolution photo or would
> it perhaps be better/necessary to examine the
> genuine article in order to offer near
> conclusive quality expert opinion ?

Yes, Yes and Yes.
If you are talking about the Monet which is a far more complex arrangement of gestures then yes a higher resolution, close up would be necessary in order to delineate the individual strokes.


>
> >
> > People are intelligent and can form their own
> > opinions. They are not sheep.
>
> Unfortunately , some people have a bias, then they
> find (conjure or imagine) conformational bias!

True but that bias is the result of a plethora of other inputs that may not be the result of the pure and direct observation of the primary source. Which is the cartouche itself.
In order to be objective one has to disregard the "is it" or "isn't it" conflict and work solely with the data.
>
>
> In your expert analysis:
>
> Did you examine all (high res photos) of the other
> cartouches and quarry marks Wellington Nelson
> upwards particularly the vertical painting upside
> down in Lady Aburthnot's?

None available.
>
> Are there any microscopic tell tale paint runs on
> any of the others?

As above. If you know of any I'd appreciate it if you'd let me have a copy.
However there is a benefit in looking at the cartouche in isolation.


>
> Do they indicate that the "painter" was different
> (style, brush, handedness etc) than the Campbell's
> cartouche? If so, how do they differ? If the same
> "forger" or "hoaxer" why did they bother with all
> the others?

There is a variation in style, brush, hand.


> Were they merely practicing for the final gotcha
> cartouche?


I don't know. I can only comment on the physical relationship of the materials.

In your expert opinion would it not be
> not more difficult to forge unfamiliar writing
> (hieratic) upside down?

No. How would the forger know what was the correct orientation?


>
> In your expert opinion, if all that a forger
> needed was a "Khufu" cartouche, then would it not
> been easier to paint it in an upright horizontal
> manner on a vertical wall in a lower chamber? If
> not, then ...why not?

Again can't answer I can only comment on the physicality of the artwork and the way in which it was constructed.

>
> What is the advantage of having to contort oneself
> into a Michelangelo pose and attempt a forgery on
> an angled gable roof?

Again I cannot comment on motive only the artwork itself.

Do the drips drop vertically
> and not run or something?

If the paint lacked sufficient viscosity then single suspended drips would drop vertically onto the floor or whatever was directly beneath.
If the weight of the applied paint were sufficient to overcome its viscosity but not surface tension then the paint would run. That's the difference between a drip and a run, the extreme is a curtain.
Surface tension can increase rapidly after application, surface/skin solvent evaporation leading to solvent entrapment.


>
> Edit to add: Asking did you study in your highly
> admirable art degrees how to paint deep into
> concealed crevices in multi ton block structures?
> Can you tell us the technical procedure for that?

Access the crevices and then apply paint, usually using a brush.

> My appreciation for your expert opinion, in
> advance.
>
> Cheers

It's been a pleasure.
I particularly like discussing Monet, and the relationship between physics and art.
Bloody marvelous.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 27-Jun-16 07:57 by Jon Ellison.