Actually you didn't. Most of the quotes in your "demonstration" to me dealt with the East Wall Frieze, which doesn't even depict Moses (as I explained in my initial post to you). You also posted a quote regarding how the tour guide didn't know about the Ten Commandments on the courtroom door--Gee, no Moses there either. Finally you posted a quote concerning the information desk lady who didn't know about the East Pediment, but she did *not* deny it depicted Moses with the Commandments.
Look, there's two depictions of Moses with the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court. One is on the South Wall Frieze inside the courtroom; the other is on the East Pediment at the rear of the building. *Nobody* in the article claimed that those 2 depictions are anything other than Moses with the Ten Commandments. The article *does* talk about some woman at the information desk who didn't know about the East Pediment. But so what? She certainly didn't deny that it was Moses with the Commandments once she saw the photo of it. Get it? Also, the inside tour guide (the one who didn't know about the Ten Commandments on the courtroom door) did *not* claim that the depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the South Wall Frieze was anything other than Moses holding the Ten Commandments. Plus, she didn't even discuss the East Pediment (which *does* depict Moses with the Commandments), much less claim that Moses with the Commandments isn't depicted on it.
Let's recap. You made the assertion that "Moses [on some frieze] has been reduced to a non-entity and his tablets have been morphed into the Bill of Rights". Except, there's nobody claiming that Moses isn't Moses. Nor is there anyone claiming that the tablets held by Moses are the Bill of Rights. Reread the article--it says no such thing.
Moses is depicted on the East side.
Aha! I now see the source of your confusion. Moses is depicted on the East Pediment, sure. But he's *not* depicted on the East Wall Frieze, which is what the author was so concerned about and which is the main focus of the article. If you're under the impression that the tour guide was claiming that's not Moses or that's not the Ten Commandments on the East Pediment, you're way wrong. The East Pediment wasn't part of the tour and wasn't even discussed by the tour guide.
Me: I'm replying specifically to your comment which I italicized above.
You: That is fine and dandy but you made several false statements in replying to it which I felt like correcting.
Actually, now that it's clear that you were confusing the East Pediment (which wasn't a part of the tour and which was hardly mentioned in the article and which no one is denying is Moses with the Commandments) with the East Wall Frieze (which *was* a part of the tour and which doesn't depict Moses and which is what the article is mainly about), it should be equally clear that my initial post didn't need correcting.
He then asked, "If there are no other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments on the building except on the South Wall Frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court, then what about on the east side of the building where Moses is the central figure among others, holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm?"
Notice the word 'on' and what it refers to.
But DuBord's tour guide said those – too – were the Ten Amendments.
Nowhere in the article does it say that the author talked to "a woman at the information desk." The only SC representatives mentioned are both 'tour guides.' One would think the tour guides would have accurate information. But the one you refer to as an info-babe said...
"Her response shocked me as much as the guide inside the Court chamber. 'There is no depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments like that on the U.S. Supreme Court,'" DuBord said he was told.
Once again note the use of the word 'on' and the all inclusive language "There is no..." It makes the author's point that disinformation is being disseminated at and about the SC artwork.
Except, there's nobody claiming that Moses isn't Moses.
And no one claimed that anyone said that.
Nor is there anyone claiming that the tablets held by Moses are the Bill of Rights.
But it does say that.
The current information office at the Supreme Court declined to talk on the record with WND when asked about Ten Commandments representations on the building, referring questioners to the website.There, a document does indicate "Moses" is one of various lawgivers portrayed in the friezes, but the site doesn't mention "Ten Commandments." It does mention the "Ten Amendments."
He then asked, "If there are no other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments on the building except on the South Wall Frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court, then what about on the east side of the building where Moses is the central figure among others, holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm?"But DuBord's tour guide said those – too – were the Ten Amendments.
One other place it was said.
Even that statement isn't true. You are referring to either post #63 which has only one reference to the East Wall Frieze or post #70 which only concerns the east pediment as you correctly pointed out. So far the only thing you have been right about.