Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
SC: I have to say I am somewhat dismayed with this comment of yours, Robert. In the absence of hard empirical science that proves the marks in these chambers are genuine and in the face of mounting evidence that strongly suggests they were faked by Vyse, surely the most sensible position for anyone to adopt is one of neutrality until the absolute truth can be determined.
Whilst I strongly suspect these markings were faked by Vyse & Co (based on evidence recently uncovered, some of which you have seen), my position has to remain neutral inasmuch as, short of uncovering an affidavit signed by Vyse confessing to the fraud, no one can know with 100% certainty. The best we can do is to get hard science onto the case to finally settle the matter one way or the other.
So no, Robert--simply because I and others happen to disagree with your view does not place any of us in "la la land". Based on the evidence I have uncovered I strongly believe these marks to be fakes but I am quite happy and would be delighted for hard science to prove me wrong.
Why won't Egyptology do the science? (Or have they?) It is "la la land" to expect anyone to simply accept these *ahem* 'discovered' marks as genuine simply on the word of a known fraudster. That is naieve in the extreme and I would have thought that someone of your standing would have adopted a more neutral stance and be asking that the science be done.
Very disappointed, Robert.
Regards,
SC
Post Edited (15-Jul-14 14:54)
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).
Quote
RB... he [Martin Stower] is (sorry to say) the only one on this thread that is not in la-la land regarding the Khufu Cartouche.
SC: I have to say I am somewhat dismayed with this comment of yours, Robert. In the absence of hard empirical science that proves the marks in these chambers are genuine and in the face of mounting evidence that strongly suggests they were faked by Vyse, surely the most sensible position for anyone to adopt is one of neutrality until the absolute truth can be determined.
Whilst I strongly suspect these markings were faked by Vyse & Co (based on evidence recently uncovered, some of which you have seen), my position has to remain neutral inasmuch as, short of uncovering an affidavit signed by Vyse confessing to the fraud, no one can know with 100% certainty. The best we can do is to get hard science onto the case to finally settle the matter one way or the other.
So no, Robert--simply because I and others happen to disagree with your view does not place any of us in "la la land". Based on the evidence I have uncovered I strongly believe these marks to be fakes but I am quite happy and would be delighted for hard science to prove me wrong.
Why won't Egyptology do the science? (Or have they?) It is "la la land" to expect anyone to simply accept these *ahem* 'discovered' marks as genuine simply on the word of a known fraudster. That is naieve in the extreme and I would have thought that someone of your standing would have adopted a more neutral stance and be asking that the science be done.
Very disappointed, Robert.
Regards,
SC
Post Edited (15-Jul-14 14:54)
