Corpuscles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Jon
>
> Thank you for your reply. However I was
> disappointed with the lack of detail provided.
>
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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.
>
> So are you suggesting that your contribution to
> Creighton's book is so sparse and flakey (I
> suspect virtually non existent) that person like
> me (btw who holds several degrees inc post grad)
> but none in Art is in just as good position to
> assess the cartouche as you in fact "better"?

I don't know, I haven't read the book yet.


>
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
>
> Again I am thoroughly disappointed. I would
> expect a serious publication that cites an
> independent researcher and expert to at
> least refer to a detailed report which I would
> expect be included unmodified as an Appendix!
> Perhaps with an introduction indicating the
> background and verification of said "expert".
>
> To comment on the cartouche as an "art expert" I
> would expect to see some explanation of the bridge
> between art and study of painted hieratic on
> stone.
>
> Things like :
> -your detailed study of the types of brushes or
> writing implements eg camel hair or fibrous
> wooden etc.
> - your extensive study of multiple painted glyphs
> and hieractic from other sites
> - Your replication of the exercise of painting a
> cartouche on an angled stone and a flat stone
> -detailed explaination as to why it is impossible
> to have been painted flat in a quarry
>
> Lots of other things, but you ought know that if
> you were an "expert".
>
> So, I ask again is there significant detail of
> your own work in Creighton's book?

I don't know I haven't read the book yet.



>
> It seems all that has happened is that as a wet
> behind the ears newbie to GHMB you posted a
> theory, it was picked up by SC, then some
> clarifying private email exchanges and that is
> ALL? Perhaps he didn't even seek your
> authorisation to use your real name?


Make of it what you will.
I don't really see being a member of the GHMB as an academic qualification.
So being "wet behind the ears" or otherwise is irrelevant.



>
> >
> > > > My "Expert" expertise was only required to
> > make
> > > > people aware that this method exists..
> > > > Which Scott and I did.
> > >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> No expert required? No expert opinion with
> substantiated support given?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Thank you for the great blown up pic of Monet's
> water lily's. I can see the layering and have some
> idea of the brush sequence. It helps of course to
> know Monet was right handed.

Is that a fact?



>
> > 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?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> This is interesting. Is this the type of stuff
> you did to determine the cartouche brush strokes
> were made in situ? Can you explain why the same
> thing cannot have been made vertically on a flat
> surface in the quarry?

Scot may include that in the book, I cannot guarantee it, it's entirely up to him. He has my full permission to do so.



> > > > 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.
>
> However, your data consists of only a couple
> of pictures. You claim to see paint runs. I have
> stared at it like I suspect many others and do not
> see any paint runs! Nor clear indication of
> vertical/horizontal strokes


The paint runs are related to the brush stroke sequencing but the two are not interdependent insofar as analyses is concerned.



> > > 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.
>
> You advised above that you had no access to
> photographs of the cartouches and writing in other
> chambers, but then declare "variation in style,
> brush, hand". Impossible for you to determine. Are
> you just trying to bluff and make up BS! Is BS
> what Creighton asked you for?

When I said variation in style I was referring to other marks in the same chamber.


> > > 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?
>
>
> I think poster EyeofHorus has already addressed
> the issue. A forger would have no reason to
> attempt to paint them upside down. Nor in 1837
> would they be significantly skilled in hieratic to
> be capable of doing it.
> The point,is that it is no good being an art
> expert when the issue is authenticity of
> ancient AE handwriting.

I've carried out a full analyses only on the contentious cartouche. As requested.



> > > 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.
>
>
> But you provide no reasons (supporting
> information) whatsoever... as to why you think
> they were 'painted' that way or even how?
> >

As previously mentioned. Scott may provide details in his forthcoming book.




> > > 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.
>
> So your independent research and expertise
> simply amounts to a guess based on your bias?

No.



> How is that video coming along?


I may release it after Scott has released his book.



> > > 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.
>
> Is that what you learnt in Uni? Plain BS!
> How do you access such crevices attested to by
> many many eye witnesses who declare it
> impossible?

Sorry I thought you meant in the chambers themselves.
I have seen no evidence of readable and recognizable Egyptian hieroglyphs in crevices. Only unreadable masons marks which are most likely contemporaneous with the construction of the pyramid.
>
>
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> It is obvious you know more than a thing or too
> about art and impressionists in particular.
>
> What I am yet to ascertain is whether you know
> anything that would qualify you as an expert or
> even a real researcher into painted hieratic ?

I'm only concerned with the application of red ocher paint,
and the sequential relationship between individual brush strokes.



> > It seems Lover's "gargantuan ego's" comment
> seems apt to the reason for any actual consent to
> be cited in SC book?
>
> Yes a pleasure ... bloody marvellous!
>
> But can you address the questions this time?

I hope this helps.