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).
Martin Stower wrote:
> Even here, there is no claim that Humphries Brewer witnessed an
> act of forgery. The relevant paragraph in full is as follows:
>
> On close
> consideration, it’s remarkably non-committal. Do you see what
> I mean?
This is one of the most damning things I've seen. That this guy believed there was any kind of "painting" going on would seem to put a paint brush in Vyse's hand. The painter and observer would necessarily have different perspectives. How closely was this processed watched?
Now there is a complicarting factor as well since it would be expected to find some "later" paint in some places. How strange that in so brief a description that "repainting" would even appear. It suggests the author found this important.
> Even here, there is no claim that Humphries Brewer witnessed an
> act of forgery. The relevant paragraph in full is as follows:
>
Quote
Faint marks were
> repainted, some were new. Did not find Tomb.
> On close
> consideration, it’s remarkably non-committal. Do you see what
> I mean?
This is one of the most damning things I've seen. That this guy believed there was any kind of "painting" going on would seem to put a paint brush in Vyse's hand. The painter and observer would necessarily have different perspectives. How closely was this processed watched?
Now there is a complicarting factor as well since it would be expected to find some "later" paint in some places. How strange that in so brief a description that "repainting" would even appear. It suggests the author found this important.
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.
