In your earlier discussion (re: Vyse's fraud, etc.) I, too, noted that there are stray dots all over the blocks in those rafters (at least according to Colette Dowell's excellent photographs), and I have a few comments/questions (sorry about the length of this, but it's obviously VERY fun stuff!):
1. Are those marks all over every block, or are they more concentrated on the blocks with glyphs of questionable authenticity? (I assume they are everywhere)
2. The stray dots clearly are correlated to the peaks (and not valleys) in the original chiseling/plastering. The most obvious being in this photo, about 3/4 down in the horizontal center between the two glyphs: [circulartimes.org]. Also note the foreground in this one: [circulartimes.org] The stray dots are clearly on peaks, not valleys.
3. On Dowell's photo of the "Kh-u-f-u" cartouche, that the dots lie on peaks is not as obvious but is still suggested: [circulartimes.org]
4. Why would there be so many stray dots, even in areas where there are no glyphs? One possibility (and I believe this is the case) is that during the process of shaping the stone's planar surface, the masons periodically laid down a flat sheet, perhaps stone, wood, or copper veneer, that was thinly coated with red paint which, when laid upon a rough stone, would identify the peaks which would need to be "chiseled" down, and at some point a residual amount of red marks, when distributed evenly over the block, would be considered "flat enough" for the specifications for that particular surface.
5. Regarding why Vyse, et al. would include only those specific dots under the "horned serpent" in the drawing of the cartouche but not in the drawings of any other glyphs, here is some hairbrainstorming:
In any case, I strongly subscribe to the "red paint on a planar veneer" hypothesis to explain the stray dots. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if the dots in the carouche are NOT on peaks, this is evidence that they were forged.Quote
a. The "seive" glyph in the cartouche was relatively new to them, and so they put special attention to include any other strange markings within the cartouche, perhaps because Vyse, too, noticed the anomalous positioning of the "horned serpent" (as I've observed, myself) and felt the need to include the dots as a way of justifying why the "f" was placed so high in the sequence without providing any explanation of what they mean (or even verbally acknowledging their presence!).
b. Vyse was unable to completely "edit" the glyphs within that cartouche, was haunted by the reality that he could not credibly erase the "feet" from the 4-legged animal that was the original glyph in that position, and so became obsessed with trying to justify (to the public) why those "dots" were there. It is quite possible that he did not realize he simply could have categorized those dots with the other stray dots all over that surface and called them "random markings". But he might not have even noticed all those other dots since he was using low power candles and not high-powered LEDs and simply did not scrutinize the other glyphs nearly as much as what was under that "horned serpent"!! The other dots may have been too subtle for him to notice within the dim, yellow, flickering candle light, whereas the glyphs themselves were far more of an obvious "signal" compared to the more subtle "noise" of the relatively tiny dots around those glyphs.
c. Vyse's inclusion of the dots in the Cartouche is a devious ploy to claim ignorance by implying "hey, what do I know, I'm just copying the marks within the cartouche as I found them there!" without him feeling any need to explain why he omitted the dots, or indeed, as I said, he might not have even known those other stray dots were there.
Again, just my take on the physical evidence.
Post Edited (06-Sep-14 18:45)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?