Rajaram's bogus "horse seal"

[nanda chandran]

I took a look at the site with the pictures.

The original photo by Mackay though chipped at the edge
does seem to have, atleast partially, a neck and the head
portion of the animal.

Also if you notice in the photo supplied by M Witzel the belly stretches out
straight without curving into the genital area.
But in Mackay's photo the belly of the animal has already curved - seemingly
towards the frontal part of the body. And it would
be difficult to place the genitals in a spot after the belly
curve - atleast I've seen no bull or cow with such a genital
positioning. So I doubt if both the pictures are of the same animal. The
inscriptions alone cannot testify to this equation.

And your ability to use photoshop to the advantage of the
horse theory only seems to strengthen the Rajaram's and
Jha's case!

BTW I don't think this attack on Rajaram and Jha is correct
given that none of the defenders of their position, are
on the list anymore. And given the weakness of the argument
one should be careful about using terms such as "bogus" etc.

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com