I totally agree, without committing to Scott's alleged role, as I really don't know much about the details of his presentation.

For somebody in my position, a lay person who doesn't know nearly as much about this subject as you and many here, if I don't see a qualifier like you mention, I immediately distrust (without condemning) the whole of a work. Discussions like this, especially ones with the gravitas of the red paint implications, one really should be clear about what an 'Egyptologist' is. That much I can know.

Gaining fuller clarity puts a person like me in a tough position, though. I hesitate to ask types like you questions because I figure I'm wasting your time, knowing that my level of commitment is light at best. The way people sometimes don't answer questions is telling that way, imo, but also understandable.


Knowing as little as I do about the points Scott raised, my position on Vyse - which I have considered at some lenght in the past- remains of in line with the traditional view, that it is graffiti circa Khufu. To Martin's point in the OP, I figure that Scott's most forceful counter ideas would have gained firm traction by now, viz credible sources, especially given his talents for promotion. Had I seen one such example, I would have posted here immediately here to see if informed types like yourself could answer well, and to what extent.

I recall one indirectly related example. Must have been a couple of years ago, around the time of PaintGate, when I suggested that those in charge simply scrape off a tiny portion of the graffiti and analyze. Let's get this over with!

You had said that that would amount to a precedent, whereby the same should be done elsewhere, if a given idea was granted enough circulation. That was a good answer. Big diff, between the circulation of an idea and its quality.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 23-Nov-19 18:01 by Poster Boy.