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).
Corpuscles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> It is a pity you pitched the title (of your
> books Vol I and Vol lI) and the essence
> biographical content to a relatively unknown (very
> limited known appeal) individual.
> However,
Strange Journey Vol I & II
> highly recommended to anyone seeking clarification
> and the facts and the truth.
...
Well: as we know, the name of Humphries Brewer at one time became notorious after his descendant Walter Allen's claim that Humphries was an eyewitness to Vyse's alleged forgery.
Perhaps astonishingly, there are still those who continue to rely on the "evidence" of Walter Allen's logbook, despite the many questions raised regarding its bona fides, on no visible grounds other than that the ink has not been tested. Oddly this does not figure for them as an objection to treating it as evidence; nor does the absence of equivalent testing (of the paint) deter them from denouncing the various names of Khufu as forgeries.
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> It is a pity you pitched the title (of your
> books Vol I and Vol lI) and the essence
> biographical content to a relatively unknown (very
> limited known appeal) individual.
> However,
Strange Journey Vol I & II
> highly recommended to anyone seeking clarification
> and the facts and the truth.
...
Well: as we know, the name of Humphries Brewer at one time became notorious after his descendant Walter Allen's claim that Humphries was an eyewitness to Vyse's alleged forgery.
Perhaps astonishingly, there are still those who continue to rely on the "evidence" of Walter Allen's logbook, despite the many questions raised regarding its bona fides, on no visible grounds other than that the ink has not been tested. Oddly this does not figure for them as an objection to treating it as evidence; nor does the absence of equivalent testing (of the paint) deter them from denouncing the various names of Khufu as forgeries.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.