> Obviously, you haven't read Vyse's "Operations...".
I’ve read it well enough to know that there was a series of discoveries, not just one.
> It wasn't until at least a full day after his private
> "discovery" that he finally invited people who were not
> beholden to his terms of employment.
No more than a day? Wow. How many archaeological digs these days would be that open?
Have you reason to believe that the terms of employment included turning a blind eye to (or actively engaging in) forgery? Do you have any reason to believe that Perring and Mash and Hill and Raven and Brettell and others were the kind of people who would just go along with that? Isn’t that just a very convenient assumption?
> "Standards" of the day were very clearly NOT to blast with gun
> powder. If that was the "standard" then everyone else would
> have done the same thing. The only one else who consecrated G1
> anywhere nearly as badly as Vyse was al Mamoun a thousand years
> earlier. You cannot be serious.
I suggest that you need to read more widely about the use of gunpowder (and other methods which would be entirely unacceptable today). I am entirely serious, having looked into the matter. In this case empiricism is recommended.
> I've never read Sitchin. The moment I found out his thesis
> focused on aliens I discarded any interest in his writing. But
> you sure sound like you've read Sitchin.
Yes, and having read Sitchin, I recognise second-hand, third-hand, fourth-hand Sitchin when I see it. Not everyone does. Theres a lot of it on the ’net. Some mistake it for their own original thoughts.
> Go ahead and keep giving Vyse a free pass.
> Don't know who you think you're fooling though.
Where exactly is the objective science and logic in that remark?
The only pass I give Vyse is that resulting from having examined the allegations critically and finding them wanting.