John Snape, “art expert” (so designated by Creighton’s publisher), wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > For other readers:
>
> More for your readers..
> Where does it mention in my statement that I claim
> it to be a modern fake????
> Come on you say it's obvious. Where is it.
> Your readers would like to know.

Brilliant method. He removes the link, then demands the explanation he would have found by following it:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1087882,1088625#msg-1088625

I’ll run through it again, with amplification for the hard of understanding.

Femano posted this claim:

Quote

The bottom image was identified as a modern fake in an earlier discussion. The sphinx is a modern style, possibly Victorian, and not at all the style of 3rd millennium BC Egypt.

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1087882,1088488#msg-1088488

I challenged him to back up this claim:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1087882,1088506#msg-1088506

Femano responded by (a) quoting Hassan and (b) backpedalling on the claim:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1087882,1088537#msg-1088537

—but Snape, being slow, failed to notice the backpedalling and chipped in in this wise:

Quote

It looks nothing like the Great Sphinx.
Arched back as opposed to flat back and a totally different headdress.
Either the artist couldn't draw or he could draw but had never actually seen the Great Sphinx. Maybe it's a representation of a later, more curvacious Sphinx.
I think there's a number of reasons why Hassan was quite rightly suspicious. It's more reminiscent of a hand drawn, fanciful Victorian postcard. Sunshine, Pyramid, Sphinx. Just needs a camel to complete lol.
Tourist Knockoff??
"Yes sir I can get you three dozen by next Wednesday".
Hassan knew what he was looking at.

To argue that in posting this, Snape was supporting what he took to be Femano’s claim, would labour the obvious.

Snape,

You are such a simpleton—even as a weasel and a troll, such a simpleton—that you imagine (or imagine that you can con the readers of this board into believing) that not using a particular form of words means you didn’t express the thought. That’s not how it works. You expressed it as clearly—more so—as someone might in a painting, without using words at all. If you find that idea hard to grasp, I suggest you read this interesting blog post:

http://kelina03.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/semiotics-in-art.html

—and then get serious by doing the reading on pragmatics which you failed to do last time around.

M.