Scott Creighton wrote:

> I do believe I asked for evidence that proves, beyond
> question, that the inscriptions in those chambers are
> authentic. I do not recall ever having been presented with such
> so if you could do so now, that would be helpful.
>
> And you did not answer my question - why do you not wish the
> truth to be known?

This is a false quandary. Your question is formulated in such a way as to presume that an unwillingness to encourage anyone to engaged in unwarranted disturbance of delicate archaeological artefacts is to be interpreted as an unwillingness for the 'truth to be known'. But an examination of the facts and evidence at present available to us indicates that Howard Vyse and his colleagues made a bona fide discovery, in which forgery played no part at all. Consequently, there is no evidence that 'facts' or 'truth' are being concealed - and, therefore, no need for further investigation.

> Why do you not wish further investigation to
> be done on these inscriptions?

I've explained. They're fragile - like your reasons for wanting to disturb them.

> I rather suspect that if someone
> held up a candle to the dark you would be among the first to
> blow it out. Your position here rather reminds me of the
> Inquisition when they refused to look through the telescope of
> Galileo which would have shown them the truth of the universe -
> they did not want to see the truth; they did not want their
> power-base erroded. Alas, for you, the truth prevailed then and
> will do so again.

This is just rhetoric.

(Edited: clarification)



Post Edited (22-May-13 09:40)