Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DUNE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Martin Stower Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > DUNE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > Martin Stower Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > > > You think that stone at such a joint with
> so many
> > > > > tons upon it would not flake?
> > > > >
> > > > > M.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well i don't think the pressure at that
> point
> > > > would amount to tons, don't forget the
> remaining
> > > > length of that beam goes further down
> alongside
> > > > that side wall, and the side wall would have
> been
> > > > cut in the same angle as the beam.
> > > > Also the beam is resting against the
> opposite
> > > > beam to form the apex, so i would think
> very
> > > > little pressure is being placed at that
> juncture.
> > >
> > > I find this a strange remark. I mean, there
> is
> > > some masonry on top of this structure, isn’t
> there?
> > >
> > Sorry you lost me there.
> >
> > > By the way, did you notice this?
> > >
> > Did i notice this, yes i wrote it lol
> >
> > > “Although photos can not prove anything
> > > definitively . . . In denying what is clearly
> seen
> > > in those pics means you are attempting to
> suppress
> > > the truth . . .”
> > >
> > > M.
> >
> > Of course it works both ways, but given the
> > parameters we are working with, we are left
> with
> > probabilities, given all the available evidence
> ,
> > and i believe the evidence is damming ,therefor
> > what we are looking at in those pics is
> plaster,
> > being there is 100% evidence of plaster being
> > applied in these chambers means it puts the
> > probability of it being plaster very high
> >
> > You could hang on to the small percentage of it
> > not being plaster but don't bet money on it.
> >
> > DPP
>
> DUNE, I agree with your assessment of the pressure
> bearing down at that junction. There is minimal
> pressure at that junction due to the nature of the
> stonework reported by other investigators. The
> main bearing is the bottom of the block not the
> edge that's sticking up at that junction:
>
>
>
> Even if there was pressure at that junction, you'd
> expect to see the flaking at the junction, not a
> distance above it.
>
> Instead, as I've argued in previous discussions, I
> believe there's a plausible possibility that the
> whiter shade of stone we see along that junction
> is not due to flaking due to physical pressure
> bearing down by the upper masonry but rather is
> the result of deliberately scraping off a smudge
> of red paint that smeared onto the lower aspect of
> that roof block during an attempt to wipe up the
> paint run that's clearly visible along that
> horizontal joint. Whether that paint run
> originated at the cartouche, and whether the
> whiter tint is exposed limestone or plaster remain
> to be determined, but the photo clearly shows the
> red paint run along the joint and also the scrape
> marks which are above -- and not encroaching into
> -- that joint.


Hi Ori,

I concur with your above post and diagram, that shows where the main force is being transferred .

I differ to some degree on how that whiter scrap/smudge mark got there, scrap kinda implies abrasion from two hard surfaces , you could be right about the white marks being the result of an attempt to wipe away some Red Ochre, so i find wipe to be more appropriate , and i would further suggest that the cloth that wiped away the Red Ochre run off was contaminated with white paint, the same white paint that i have on many occasions highlighted in various Colette Dowel's photos of that Cartouche area, so that's the scenario i lean to, but your scrap could of course be the culprit that caused those white marks.
Whatever the cause , its presence is suspicious in its position .





DPP