Just read it. I am trying my best to follow the logic. Please advise.
Here are the bullets against the authenticity of the cartouche as I understand his case:
1) The man, Vyse, was a shady character. He cheated to win an election
2) The descendant of a witness who says his Great Great Grand father saw Raven and Hill refresh old paint and make new markings and had a dispute with them. The witness is not mentioned by Vyse to cover this up.
3) In his diary, Vyse records a cartouche from another source with an empty circle and two dots below the viper and debates which is correct. Thinks empty circle could be misread as Ra instead of Kh even though the two are interchangeable (says S.C.). Thinks the two dots have meaning. Forges cartouche with two dots and sieve.
Am I correct that the main weight of this whole case rests on the assumption that one of the two drawings in Vyse's diary of a cartouche containing an empty circle (the other shows the sieve) cannot possibly have been an illustration of the cartouche in CC because the three lines of the sieve symbol are missing in the drawing?
Here is S.C. excerpt pertaining to that conclusion: "Had the cartouche in Figure 2 been copied from the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber, then Vyse most surely would have copied the small lines into the plain circle that we observe in the circle of Figure 1. That he did not copy these lines tells us he did not observe such lines in the circle of this cartouche in Figure 2, which implies, of course, that the cartouche in Figure 2 is from a different source than the one in Campbell’s Chamber (Figure 1)."
He concludes: "The evidence is compelling, I believe, that, at the very least , Vyse added the three lines to the Khufu disc. Thus it is clear Vyse tampered with evidence. If he could add three lines then he could just as easily have added three thousand lines. As such, one must conclude, this evidence has become irredeemably tainted by Vyse’s actions."
Yes/No...am I missing something?
Here are the bullets against the authenticity of the cartouche as I understand his case:
1) The man, Vyse, was a shady character. He cheated to win an election
2) The descendant of a witness who says his Great Great Grand father saw Raven and Hill refresh old paint and make new markings and had a dispute with them. The witness is not mentioned by Vyse to cover this up.
3) In his diary, Vyse records a cartouche from another source with an empty circle and two dots below the viper and debates which is correct. Thinks empty circle could be misread as Ra instead of Kh even though the two are interchangeable (says S.C.). Thinks the two dots have meaning. Forges cartouche with two dots and sieve.
Am I correct that the main weight of this whole case rests on the assumption that one of the two drawings in Vyse's diary of a cartouche containing an empty circle (the other shows the sieve) cannot possibly have been an illustration of the cartouche in CC because the three lines of the sieve symbol are missing in the drawing?
Here is S.C. excerpt pertaining to that conclusion: "Had the cartouche in Figure 2 been copied from the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber, then Vyse most surely would have copied the small lines into the plain circle that we observe in the circle of Figure 1. That he did not copy these lines tells us he did not observe such lines in the circle of this cartouche in Figure 2, which implies, of course, that the cartouche in Figure 2 is from a different source than the one in Campbell’s Chamber (Figure 1)."
He concludes: "The evidence is compelling, I believe, that, at the very least , Vyse added the three lines to the Khufu disc. Thus it is clear Vyse tampered with evidence. If he could add three lines then he could just as easily have added three thousand lines. As such, one must conclude, this evidence has become irredeemably tainted by Vyse’s actions."
Yes/No...am I missing something?