Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
kmt_sesh

Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid

477 posts in this topic

Final Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 9

What smoke and mirrors, what self serving nonsense, what arrogant self-righteousness, what tautology, and how insulting to an entire profession and anybody who does not fall for the bunkum of the fringe. All we see is the usual attack that if you do not take seriously every nonsense theory that emerges, then you are a dimwitted luddite. These riduculous attacks on reality are all the same no matter who is the author, even today I have been attacked, yet again, and in another place, for daring to call the book "The Giza Powerplant" the nonsense it clearly is. Are we expected to believe each of these nonsense theories? are they all to be true? all except yours of course. Do not climb on here with these constant sly insults to peoples intelligence. You call others rigid in their thought processes, yet cannot see this in your own. Your arguments about Vyse and the cartouche have been demolished for all to see. Any blockheaded thinking here is yours.

REALITY 10 - FRINGE 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: I disagree. What I am in fact doing and which every critical thinking person should be doing is trying to make sense of the evidence presented before us rather than simply jumping to the first seemingly obvious conclusion. When people jump to the first, seemingly obvious conclusion in a given situation you end up with—for example—the ridiculous claim that the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs.

I think it would suit you well to re-examine the real "fiction" in this thread, to wit:

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Howard-Vyse simply could not have faked the inscriptions in the chambers because he did not know or understand AE script, implying that the inscriptions must therefore be authentic. I presented a means by which Howard-Vyse could have perpetrated such a hoax without the need for any advanced knowledge of AE Script therefore what had previously been thought by the apologists as impossible is now regarded as possible.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 1

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that some hieroglyphics were placed in tight gaps between immovable blocks where no forger could possibly have placed them. I presented a means by which glyphs could easily have been placed into such tight gaps. I also explained that, according to Hancock, the marks in the tight gaps did not look like glyphs, just random mason’s “quarry marks” (although this would need to be confirmed by experts).

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 2

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere questioned that Humphries Brewer even existed. I presented evidence to show he did exist.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 3

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Humphries Brewer was wrongly attributed with the Thames Tunnel. I have shown that this is not even mentioned in the Walter Allen family record.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 4

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that there is no official record Humphries Brewer having ever been in Egypt. I have shown that such a record does exist that states he was in Egypt.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 5

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Walter Allen was a fiction of Sitchin. I have shown that Walter Allen existed.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 6

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Howard-Vyse was a man whose character was whiter than the driven snow. I have show how that is not the case.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 7

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that there was no design competition to build the Chain Bridge over the Danube. I have show that there was a competition. (I will come back to this last point).

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 8

Time and time again the apologists have made claims that have been shown to be wrong. So you have to ask yourself, who exactly is making up the “fiction” here? You have to ask yourself, who is being critically-minded with the evidence rather than accepting it at face value? You have to ask yourself, who is it that is changing perceptions here? Accepting what you see before you at face value is how you end up deceiving yourself and not wishing to dig (or think) any deeper than the surface evidence is wilful neglect. The apologists around here and elsewhere do not wish to think outside the box on this issue (and others) for fear of what they might end of finding; for fear of any new discovery bringing their long-held beliefs crashing down around them. They are happy with their superficial observations and are more than willing and happy to reject real science getting involved. They are happy with their confirmation bias. If you were to be truly objective you would think of every possible context to explain the evidence and not simply let the surface veneer confirm what you want to believe. That isn’t being honest with yourself and it most certainly isn’t science. By following such an approach you simply end up as sheeple.

Now to the bridge question. You have to ask yourself something: who awarded Humphries Brewer his prize and in what context was the prize awarded? The context is not given in the Allen record. Why would Humphries Brewer be falsely credited with the construction of the Chain Bridge at Budapest when it could so easily be discovered that this was a lie? And why is this credit not repeated in Brewer’s obituary? It stands to reason that a major achievement such as this would be foremost in most people’s obituary, so why is it in Allen’s family account but not in Brewer’s obituary?

Do you see what I am doing here? I am digging deeper, asking more questions. I am not accepting the first conclusion that would be in the apologist’s minds. And that is what everyone here should be doing. We need to be objective folks.

A number of years ago my brother-in-law won an award for designing a bridge over the river Clyde in Glasgow, Scotland. The competition was run by his university department. A number of years later, a new bridge was built over the River Clyde. It wasn’t my brother-in-law’s design that was ultimately built. But he is still very proud of his design award. The point here is context—what was the precise context of the design prize won by Brewer? It is simply not given in Walter Allen’s account and so, barring the discovery of the actual letters, we may never be able to answer that question. But we should not presume to know the answer. What we do know is that it would have been silly in the extreme for him to claim something that could so easily be disproved (and which those in the ‘know’ could tell immediately was a lie). And there is no claim of such made in his obituary. This strongly suggests that there was another context for this design prize claim.

Final Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 9

SC

May I interject that just because, for whatever reason, you are ignorant of the facts that detract from your brain maxturbation, or try hard to ignore them, reality is not changed?

And I certainly will not go into arguing with your circle thinking because we always end up at the same point within five posts.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I interject that just because, for whatever reason, you are ignorant of the facts that detract from your brain maxturbation, or try hard to ignore them, reality is not changed?

And I certainly will not go into arguing with your circle thinking because we always end up at the same point within five posts.

SC: Alas for you, my comments will be judged by the facts that anyone can read in this thread. And most certainly not by you.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

score sheet ???

45528_442017189211402_2088666904_n.jpg

he'll want nice 'sparkly stars' next ...

large_blue_green_glitter_star_with_silver_outline.gif

who wants one ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Alas for you, my comments will be judged by the facts that anyone can read in this thread. And most certainly not by you.

SC

Well what do you think about this "discussion"?

SC: The pyramids are yellow

Science: Well, no, the definition of yellow is a color ranging from 570-590 nm wavelenght. The pyramids are around 560 nm, therefore ocher.

SC: The definition of color was not found on a papyrus of the 4th dynasty

Science: It still does not change the fact that the pyramids are not yellow.

SC: Yes it does because Alfred Chester Beatty wrote his journal in pink ink

Sigmund Freud: interesting, do you have that frequently?

And that is been going on, as far as I remember, for at least the last two years. Wherein, when you got enough of a beating showing that most of your so called "discoveries" are but brain maxturbations you disappear for a few months to start back at exactly the same intellectual diarrhea that has been refuted prior.

I can understand that you want to sell your books, but sorry, the stuff you are (in a very ill prose, if I may add) writing does not sell. Try writing something about the reality, or, if you cannot deal with reality try some real fiction. You seem to have a talent for that. But for the rest: You are at a pretty dead end and most who bought something you wrote are sad that it is not in newspaper form: then the paper could at least be used to wrap something in it.

Edited by questionmark
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: I believe it to be I. K. Brunel

Oh, you believe?

Of course you've the right to believe what you want; but the only Brunel who seems to have any link with this bridge is the father, Marc. See http://elsolanchid.h...zoom=auto,0,542 : the Count Sándor Móricz asked Marc Isambard Brunel to make a study for the Budapest bridge in 1828. If you want us to believe that Isambard Kingdom Brunel entered an open competition for the bridge around 1838 - because that is the fiction you're trying to sell us here, in order to argue that Humphries Brewer could really have participated in this competition and won some sort of prize at the age of 19/20 - you'll have to provide at least some kind of evidence for that.

To answer your other long rant at http://www.unexplain...90#entry4752351 :

you are very adept at the strawman argument, aren't you? The "evidence" you provided about the existence of Allen or Brewer has been long known by those familiar with the whole affair - I infer that some of these people even made the effort of contacting Allen while he was still alive, or going to the British Museum - which you did not in all the long years you have been arguing about the Khufu cartouches.

What is disputed here is not, contrary to what you claim, the existence of Allen and Brewer. It's the reliability of their "testimony". The Budapest bridge affair may seem a detail, but it shows that Brewer, intentionally or unwittingly, let a whole legend develop in his family and his town around his european background, and that his great-grandson's notes are to be taken with much more than a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that some hieroglyphics were placed in tight gaps between immovable blocks where no forger could possibly have placed them. I presented a means by which glyphs could easily have been placed into such tight gaps. I also explained that, according to Hancock, the marks in the tight gaps did not look like glyphs, just random mason’s “quarry marks” (although this would need to be confirmed by experts).

That seems to be an outright misrepresentation as have been many of Scott's claims. Here is what Hancock has posted.

Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began.

It seems this 'random' suggest or this 'quarry mark' commentary is not related to Hancock.

The score is Egyptotologists 1 - Fringies 0

The remainder of the score offered by Scott is irrelevant to the question of the hieroglyphics. If we add in the actual evidence which comprises the analysis of the marks we see than the score is Egyptotologists all Fringies nothing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there was a flash and a bang, a smell of sulphur, or something else, and a great cloud of smoke envelopes the stage. The smoke clears and all we see is a hole where the trapdoor was, the snake oil seller having fled with his box of fourth rate tricks. Never mind, there will be another show, September perhaps....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Irna's reply to Scott Creighton)

Of course you've the right to believe what you want; but the only Brunel who seems to have any link with this bridge is the father, Marc. See http://elsolanchid.h...zoom=auto,0,542 : the Count Sándor Móricz asked Marc Isambard Brunel to make a study for the Budapest bridge in 1828. If you want us to believe that Isambard Kingdom Brunel entered an open competition for the bridge around 1838 - because that is the fiction you're trying to sell us here, in order to argue that Humphries Brewer could really have participated in this competition and won some sort of prize at the age of 19/20 - you'll have to provide at least some kind of evidence for that.

Scott Creighton's post in answer to my question contained a link to a paper with a reference to a design by IK Brunel - page 2 of the pdf. I was rather surprised, as I didn't know that IKB had any connection with the Szchenyi Chain Bridge. The article doesn't say why the design wasn't submitted - but it appears Clark was the only one to provide answers to the Hungarians' list of questions, so maybe IKB fell a bit short.

What is disputed here is not, contrary to what you claim, the existence of Allen and Brewer. It's the reliability of their "testimony". The Budapest bridge affair may seem a detail, but it shows that Brewer, intentionally or unwittingly, let a whole legend develop in his family and his town around his european background, and that his great-grandson's notes are to be taken with much more than a grain of salt.

Others may argue with this - but I'm not going to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Windowpane,

Scott Creighton's post in answer to my question contained a link to a paper with a reference to a design by IK Brunel - page 2 of the pdf.

Unless I'm mistaken, the "Brunel" mentioned in Mr. Creignton's reference, the Yapp paper (the original is here) is not precisely identified, there are no first names; nor is the date of this project given. How can we be sure that it was the son rather than the father?

Here http://www.sulinet.h...a_hajohidig.htm we can find a list of all the projects made for a bridge accross the Danube in Buda since the Roman empire; Marc Isambard Brunel is correctly named, but not his son - nor, of course, Brewer...

Edited by Irna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Humphries Brewer was wrongly attributed with the Thames Tunnel. I have shown that this is not even mentioned in the Walter Allen family record.

From Irna’s post -

http://www.ebooksrea...ical--cih.shtml

Submitting

plans for the great bridge across the Danube

River.which unites the two cities of Buda and Pesth,

in Hungary, the feasibility of construction of wliich,

was much doubted by engineers, he w.as awarded

the prize and built the bridge, which is a marvel

of skill. He was also the author of the Thames

tunnel at London, and in 1849 came to America

Martin Stower states that the source for this CV was Mary Humphries Brewer (Christie). Mrs. Christie was the sister of Walter Allen’s grandmother.

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that there is no record of Humphries Brewer having ever been in Egypt. I have shown that such a record does exist that states he was in Egypt.

Yes, so it says in an obituary and in Allen's logbook.

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that there was no design competition to build the Chain Bridge over the Danube. I have shown that there was a competition.

As Irna said, not an open competition as we would understand it. By 1837-8, it was mainly between Rennie and W.T. Clark. Clark had Széchenyi’s backing, but wasn't too happy to find that Rennie was charging a fee that was double his own. There were other designs submitted by two local engineers but they weren't accepted, because it was considered that they did not have the right experience with building in icy rivers.

Now to the bridge question. You have to ask yourself something: who awarded Humphries Brewer his prize and in what context was the prize awarded?

You also have to ask yourself - did he even submit a design? You found a Marc Isambard Brunel design for it that I didn't know about. Can you find the Humphries Brewer design as well?

The context is not given in the Allen record.

Allen refers to ‘Vienna’, not Budapest. So family tradition was not very clear, either about the context or even about the place.

Why would Humphries Brewer be falsely credited with the construction of the Chain Bridge at Budapest when it could so easily be discovered that this was a lie?

How would it have been 'easy'? This was the 1850's and 1860's. Pennsylvania was a long way from Hungary.

And why is this credit not repeated in Brewer’s obituary? It stands to reason that a major achievement such as this would be foremost in most people’s obituary, so why is it in Allen’s family account but not in Brewer’s obituary?

Did you look at the Corning Journal for 16 Jan 1868?

The Wellsboro papers contain an obituary notice of the late Humphries BreWer, . . . He came to this country twenty years ago, having been previously engaged as a civil engineer in constructing a bridge over the Danube. . .

what was the precise context of the design prize won by Brewer?

You’re right about the importance of context. What was the context of all the stories and family traditions about Brewer?

Presumable source: Mary Humphries Brewer (Christie)

Document: History of Monona County, Iowa

. . . Submitting plans for the great bridge across the Danube River, which unites the two cities of Buda and Pesth, in Hungary, the feasability of construction of which, was much doubted by engineers, he was awarded the prize and built the bridge, which is a marvel of skill. . . .

Presumable source: William Marchant Brewer

Document: The Evening Leader, Corning, Sat 30 July 1921

. . . For many years he was a surveyor for the crown having been decorated by the king for the building of a bridge across the Danube at Budapest. . . .

Presumable source: uncertain

Which parts of the information in obituaries and newspaper reports are true? Is any of it true? Or none of it? Or some of it? And how do you tell?

And, if some or all of it is true, then where’s the evidence?

According to these reports, supplied either by Humphries Brewer himself or members of his family, who were presumably informed by him, he had :

- Designed the Thames Tunnel

- Designed a bridge at Budapest, for which he received a prize

- Built a bridge at Budapest

- Worked as a Crown surveyor

- Worked in Palestine for 7 years

- And visited Egypt, originally to build a hospital, and later to work with Howard Vyse

Humphries Brewer did not design the Thames Tunnel. Marc Isambard Brunel did, in the mid 1820's.

Brewer did not design a bridge at Budapest. W.T. Clark did, in 1837, for which he received a prize.

If there is evidence of Brewer working as a Crown surveyor anywhere, it’s not yet surfaced.

Ditto re working in Palestine for 7 years.

And ditto the visit to Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Howard-Vyse simply could not have faked the inscriptions in the chambers because he did not know or understand AE script, implying that the inscriptions must therefore be authentic. I presented a means by which Howard-Vyse could have perpetrated such a hoax without the need for any advanced knowledge of AE Script therefore what had previously been thought by the apologists as impossible is now regarded as possible.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 1

You suggested Vyse found examples of graffiti outside the pyramid and used it to copy the same graffiti into the relieving chambers; he then destroyed the source graffiti. This is smoke and mirrors, not reality. It is not credible. For one thing graffiti of this nature is found on blocks of masonry, so we would have to imagine, then, that Vyse was pulverizing 6,000-pound blocks into dust so he could get away with it.Your suggestion does not lead to plausibility but ends at idle speculation. This is not a viable line of argument, nor need it be taken seriously. Graffiti has been found elsewhere in Khufu's pyramid complex, and none of it matches what was found inside the relieving chambers—that's reality.

Do not present yourself as infallible. You are not. Do not entertain notions that because you have an idea about something, it must instantly be a "game changer" and we should all sit up and take notice. While you are quite adept at self promotion, Scott, you seem not to see the distinction between speculation and actionable evidence.

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that some hieroglyphics were placed in tight gaps between immovable blocks where no forger could possibly have placed them. I presented a means by which glyphs could easily have been placed into such tight gaps. I also explained that, according to Hancock, the marks in the tight gaps did not look like glyphs, just random mason’s “quarry marks” (although this would need to be confirmed by experts).

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 2

How convenient that Hancock seems to have failed to mention the two examples in the two upper chambers where Khufu's name disappears down behind the floor blocks. Perhaps he didn't enter those two chambers and is not aware of these two examples, but in the end it's the same sort of misinformation presented by Sitchin so many years ago. Otherwise we are to suspect that Vyse somehow pried up blocks of masonry from the floor, each weighing numerous tons, in a vertical space where you can barely even stand erect.

You suggested Vyse painted graffiti on boards and impressed them into the tight spaces. This is an idea you yourself presented, but it is not the same as evidence. It is merely speculation, so please do not expect us to take it as fact merely because you had an idea. Do not present yourself as infallible. You are not.

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere questioned that Humphries Brewer even existed. I presented evidence to show he did exist.

>>Snip<<

I for one see no reason at present to doubt Humphries Brewer existed. That's not an issue for me. What is an issue is how Sitchin clearly seems to have misrepresented the nature of testimonies and letters that don't appear even to have existed. The so-called Brewer letters, for all intents and purposes, are a dead end.

So basically we have this: Orthodox history: Intact / Fringies: Still wrong about most everything.

Nothing changes. The various avenues of debate have been argued in detail in this thread. As I have stated in numerous other posts, Scott, all that is left to you and those who support the hoax myth is that Howard Vyse was involved in election rigging many years earlier while under the influence of his father and their patron (their superior officer). This was half a world away. It does not involve events at Giza. It is basically guilt by association, which at best is an extremely tenuous legal approach and at worst irrelevant. It is not evidence. The hoax myth need not be taken seriously. And in reality, it never has been.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to be an outright misrepresentation as have been many of Scott's claims. Here is what Hancock has posted.

[/color][/size][/font]

It seems this 'random' suggest or this 'quarry mark' commentary is not related to Hancock.

The score is Egyptotologists 1 - Fringies 0

The remainder of the score offered by Scott is irrelevant to the question of the hieroglyphics. If we add in the actual evidence which comprises the analysis of the marks we see than the score is Egyptotologists all Fringies nothing.

You claim a point for the egyptologist because they showed Scott that Sitchin was wrong about Hill Fascimile, doesn't seem fair.

Third eye suggested that we can also consult someone who knows calligraphy to better interpret the Cartouche, it might hold clues to how it was painted and who did it.

The actual analysis of the Cartouche is still going on and is independant of what Sitchin said about the Hill fascimile.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed Harte's earlier post, but too late. Before I could reply to point it out to him, he posted first to admit his error. See Post 352 on Page 24. Linguistics isn't a hard science, of course, but it follows rigid protocols and the scientific method. The names in the relieving chambers say Khufu, Khnum-Khufu, and Medjedu, and all three refer to the same king (no other kings are mentioned). This is attested at other sites, like the before-metioned discovery in the Sinai. There is no possible, logical doubt to this.

It is not hieratic but linear hieroglyphic. There is a clear distinction. Hieratic is a cursive version of ancient Egyptian script that also dates to prehistory, and probably evolved simultaneous to hieroglyphs. Hieratic is loaded with abbreviations and ligatures. I have a hard time deciphering it myself, but my training has been in hieroglyphs (linear and formal). Harsh, it would be a grand mistake to doubt Egyptology just for the sake of doubting it, and nothing more. Your stance against orthodox, professional historical research is not logical. If you doubt Egyptology's research on any topic of the ancient writing, you must then prove through your own concerted research how Egyptological conclusions on the scripts are wrong. Just stating they're wrong proves nothing.

The Sinai papyri have next to nothing to do with the Great Pyramid, nor would one expect them to. They relate to quarrying operations in that distant region, so they are not going to concern themselves with building descriptions. Now, not a lot has been released on them yet, but there is mention of an official named Merer who was involved with building operations of Khufu's pyramid. My guess is he was overseeing the importation of certain valuable raw materials from the Sinai mines and quarries. I started a discussion on the Sinai discovery here, and it includes photos of the papyri fragments.

I don't wish to bog down this discussion with this line of argument, which I feel is not relevant to an evaluation of the graffiti in the Great Pyramid and the wider debate about it. This is better suited for the pyramid discussion you recently started in a separate thread. I do want to join that discussion but have very little free time as of late, due to other obligations. But for the time being, I will stress the consistent overall site plan for nearly all pyramids from Dynasty 3 to the end of Dynasty 12, which includes an overall similarity in the architecture of these pyramids inside and out (in most cases including sarcophagi); the existence of associated temples and causeways involved with the mortuary cults of all of these kings, including their own inscriptional plans and relief carvings; the fact that all of these pyramids stand in known ancient necropoli where a great many other people contemporary to each king were buried; and scientific analyses such as C14 dating which establishes that all pyramids tested do in fact belong to the timeframe where orthodox scholars have always placed them. These are the highlights, at least.

Khufu's sarcophagus is not the first but certainly one of the earliest to be produced in hard stone. As such an early example, it's not surprising that it's not perfectly cut and dressed. The typical royal sarcophagus of the New Kingdom, on the other hand, puts it to shame. Again, however, you cannot evaluate Old Kingdom sarcophagi based on those produced much later in time: the overall shape, dimensions, and decoration plans (if any) of Old Kingdom sarcophagi are quite different. They are in effect simply stone boxes. As for other examples, you can use Google to find any number of examples, but for now I can show Sekhemkhet's from his unfinished pyramid at Saqqara; Khafre's from G2; Menkaure's from G3, showing a palace-facade motif (the original was lost on sea en route to England, so only drawings remain); and the sarcophagus of Queen Hetepheres from the East Cemetery of Khufu's pyramid complex. An example of a beautiful sarcophagus with spare inscriptions and the palace-facade motif is that of Queen Meresankh, also from Giza.

The lack of hieroglyphs in Davison's chamber is of course not acceptable evidence that Vyse forged the graffiti in the upper chambers. It wouldn't even fall under the category of circumstantial evidence. I have to think you're either missing a lot of the posts in this discussion or are ignoring them altogether, because it's already been shown how unrealistic this scenario is. For it to be true, we would have to imagine that Vyse was not only carrying around quantities of iron oxide on his person but somehow deftly coated all of his "forgeries" in dense layers of the dark mineral debris that was found in each chamber, covering all surfaces—and with no one noticing him doing this. And this says nothing of the sheer improbability of none of the Egyptian workmen, John Perring, or visiting aristocracy noticing Vyse painting this stuff in the first place. Vyse was nearly never alone. He was always with teams of people to perform his blasting operations and to conduct measurements of each chamber. It was only when the first chamber was being measured by Vyse, Perring, and another fellow that anyone noticed the markings on the stone blocks, underneath the ancient grime.

The entire approach to the hoax myth is basically illogical. It now seems to smack of desperation. As I wrote earlier, all avenues of evidentiary argument toward the hoax have been shut down in the pages of this thread: I stress evidentiary, not speculative, the latter of which serves no useful purpose. We are essentially left with the premise that Vyse must have forged the glyphs because of election dealings many years earlier, when he was a young man under the sway of his father and their patron (a superior officer). This is not at all a reasonable foundation on which to rest an entire case, so the case has collapsed in the light of day.

It is very much about Sitchin. This cannot be avoided due to the simple fact that no elaborate hoax myth even existed prior to 1980, when he published The Stairway to Heaven. Sitchin manufactured the hoax myth to help to sell his book (and subsequent books), and falsified evidence to make it happen. Sitchin was the first to propose that Howard Vyse forged the glyphs, and it took off from there in alternative circles. Sitchin misrepresented the nature and orthography of the glyphs to help bolster his case, and here is where he is directly guilty of falsifying evidence—hence all of the silly and unnecessary fuss about the Aa1 glyph that took off in alternative circles. Sitchin misrepresented the nature and likely even the existence of the so-called Brewer letters to help substantiate the hoax myth, even though we've seen in the pages of this thread that this is actually a gross exaggeration on Sitchin's part.

Remove Sitchin from the equation and you remove the entirety of the hoax myth. Sitchin invented it. All subsequent arguments in favor of the hoax myth are based on the original erroneous and falsified information presented by Sitchin. As is always the case and forever shall be, Sitchin is wrong.

1.

When i searched for old kingdom sarcophagii in egypt on google this is what i got.

https://www.google.co.in/search?um=1&hl=en&biw=1241&bih=611&tbm=isch&q=egyptian+old+kingdom+sarcophagi&spell=1&sa=X&ei=8hZ-UcqZCOX9iAf0moHgDg&ved=0CFAQBSgA

All i can say is none look even similar to the bath tub in the GP.Moreover, there was no lid ever found? Why would anyone rob a heavy stone lid? And if someone did rob it then how would he/she transport it out?.

2.

Now Vyse and other's were roaming with paint brushes in the GP, he and others did paint other things on the GP walls, the red ochre paint was still used and easily available in Egypt at that point of time.Now an interesting point you made is the cartouche being covered by a mineral layer of iron oxide. In the photgraph posted by MS Tower of the cartouche, right next to it i could see other things painted in Black paint, probably by Vyse again, i can bet that the known modern markings and the cartouche would be covered by the same mineral deposit, though i do not have proof for the same but i guess if a study was done on the uniformity of the residue on the black paint and the cartouche, it could tell us or give us a clue whether they were made at the same time.

image-07-large.jpg

3.

Regarding the heiratic and heiroglyphic scripts, i am not doubting Egyptology but the interpretations of our ancient past. I am not saying that the Egyptologists are immoral people who would deliberately lie, atleast most of them, but everyone and anyone can make mistakes or be mistaken. Sometimes indoctrination will make scholars skip certain anomalies in their enthusiasm to strictly interpret things the way they have been trained to as a part of their formal education.

For axample: when ever i have been involved in a creative/marketing based presentation, i have always looked for opinion of people who are not directly connected with the presentation, and it has been a very rewarding experience for me as most of my mistakes or misteps would be easily spotted in the first time viewing by these people.Now i know you will tell me there is peer review, but then again the people who are reviewing these observations are mostly Orthodox egyptologists having a similar frame of interpretation in their own minds.

4.

The Sinai papyrii, being contemporary with Khufu's reign should have atleast mentioned something about the GP, as if the GP was actually being built during that time then i believe there would have been a huge number of people associated with it and it would have significant importance in the minds of people living during that time.The mermer fellow could have been building one of the smaller pyramid or a temple.

But i guess that if the GP was being built at the time when these papyrii were written then it would definitely have been mentioned in some more detail, as GP building would have been a very prominent event impacting the life style of all associated with it, including traders and academics.

5.

Lack of heiroglyphics in the Davison chamber seems very suspicious as it doesn't fit in with scheme of heiroglyphics being present in almost all the other chambers discovered later by Vyse.

Don't you think that the AE or whoever it was that painted the Cartouche's inside would have painted atleast some more in the Davison chamber which was the biggest of the lot?.

6.

The entire approach to the Vyse forgery is not based on Sitchin's testimony. The points being made are legitimate and independant of Sitchin's testimony. LIke i said that the red ochre paint was commonly available and Vyse and others were not shy of painting things on the GP walls.

I am sure the GP has always been a mystery to people even before Sitchin wrote anything about them, people before Sitchin must have definitely questioned "who built the GP?". Nothing was known until Vyse found the cartouche's....i am sure people before this find would have still hesistated to attribute the GP to the same AE who built the other pyramids. The only reasonable motive for Vyse to forge these glyphs, would be the fame associated with answering this age old question of "who built the GP?" . Sitchin may have pointed out that Vyse could have forged the cartouche's,But you are making it seem that people before Sitchin and Vyse would have never had this doubt regarding "who built the GP", i don't think that it was or even is such an open and shut case as you pretend to make it. And i don't think that this mystery of who actually built the great pyramids arrived only after Sitchin wrote his books.

Like i am saying that even if Vyse had not committed the forgery and it is an original cartouche, still there are many other factors that make me doubt that the GP was built by the same AE who built the other pyramids, i have said once before that Khufu could have very well captures the GP and put his cartouche on the walls himself. There is already a big debate on how the GP was made, and how little is wrtitten about the actual building of the GP. The GP just stands out when compared to the other AE pyramids, and there are peculair features about the GP that do not fall into line with the other pyramids, the scale and accuracy being a big factor.

P.S.-- Just as a thought experiment, if the GP did not physically exist anymore and you would have just heard of it in an ancient egyptian document, would you believe that such a structure of this great a scale and accuracy could have actually been built by the AE ? Or would you dismiss any refference to such a Great Pyramid as a myth?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Howard-Vyse’s journal (abridged):

30th Mar – Wellington’s Chamber entered by Vyse and Hill. Entirely empty but for one piece of stone forced out by the blast. No trace of any living animal. Southern and northern walls had lugs/projections. Dimensions measured as 38’6” x 17’. Stones beautifully polished and had the finest joints. N/S walls granite, E/W walls of calcareous stone. Western sides last built. Returned again in the evening with Mash and Perring and on this return noticed the quarry marks.

31st Mar – In afternoon went with Hill into Wellington’s Chamber. Wellington’s name painted onto to wall of chamber. Mr Raven (a friend of Hill’s) is employed. p.208.

1st Apr – Perring and Mash depart. Evening returned to Cairo with Hill and Raven.

2nd Apr – Remained at Cairo.

3rd Apr – Returned to Giza in the evening with Mr Hill.

4th Apr - Work continued..

5th Apr – Hill and Raven inspect several works in the evening.

6th Apr – Perring and Mash arrive and inspect several works.

7th Apr – Perring and Mash return to Cairo. Mr Hill requests more gunpowder.

8th Apr – Two quarry-men were sent to blast over Wellington’s Chamber.

9th Apr – Mr Perring and Mash arrive from Cairo.

10th Apr – Perring, Mash and Hill go to Cairo. Vyse comments: “A slanderous paragraph, intended to be inserted in the English newspapers, was this day shown to me, which accused Colonel Campbell of having improperly laid himself under obligations to the Pacha by obtaining the firmaun; and which implied the Colonel and myself intended to make our fortunes under the pretence of scientific researches…” (No mention of who made the accusation).

SC: Who was making “slanderous” allegations against Howard-Vyse and what was the precise nature of this “slander”? He doesn’t say. Blatant election fraud in England and allegations of some form of fraud whilst in Egypt. And, of course, the charge by Humphries Brewer. It just seems to be that wherever this man goes, corruption of some sort isn’t too far behind.

And who were the “…two quarry-men…” sent to blast Wellington’s Chamber? These men would have been invaluable to Howard-Vyse in getting into these upper chambers and yet, Howard-Vyse fails to name them. Why? Could one of them have been Humphries Brewer? And, of course, if Humphries Brewer had charged Howard-Vyse of fraud (vis-à-vis Hill & Raven painting “marks” in the chambers), then is it likely that Humphries Brewer would be mentioned at all in Howard-Vyse’s printed journal? Or is it more likely that Brewer would have been written out?

Humphries Brewer’s obituary would have been written by people who knew him and his life. His obituary mentions Brewer’s time in Egypt and the Near East but makes no mention of the Danube bridge or the Thames tunnel. Why not? These would have been landmark achievements in anyone’s life and the people closest to Brewer would undoubtedly have been aware of these ‘achievements’ since Brewer, if such were true, most certainly would have told them about it. But his close family and friends at this time knew nothing about these ‘achievements’ and we have to ask why? We have to conclude that the answer is because Brewer himself made no such claim (and would have been a complete daftie to have done so since those other engineers he worked with--those in the know--would have known the truth and Brewer would have known that he would not have been able to fool such people).

The first attribution of these ‘achievements’ (in so far as I am presently aware) comes from here. This publication appeared some 22 years after Brewer’s death. Unfortunately there is no source for their information. (I am presently trying to track that down but do not hold out much hope). Why would this ‘official’ account of the Monona County make such a claim when Brewer’s own obituary (written by the people that were closest to him and new him best) made no such claims? Did the editor of this book, long after Brewer’s death, decide unilaterally to embellish one of the district’s sons with false achievements? One thing seems certain here—this embellishment of Brewer in this book would not have come from Brewer’s immediate family at the time of his death otherwise these ‘achievements’ would have been mentioned in his obituary.

Anyone of the later generations of Brewer’s family who may have been researching the family’s origins would have come across this information in this book (published 1890) and likely accepted its content on face value. We will probably never know how or why this attribution came to be placed on Humphries Brewer but it seems that it was made by others who did not know him. All of which just goes to show that we should not always accept what we see at face value.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Irna,

Unless I'm mistaken, the "Brunel" mentioned in Mr. Creignton's reference, the Yapp paper (the original is here) is not precisely identified, there are no first names; nor is the date of this project given. How can we be sure that it was the son rather than the father?

I see your point. There's no indication, no date, and the image is too faint to be able to make out any attribution.

Contrary to what Mr. Creighton says, 'Brunel' can mean either the father or the son, depending on context.

In 1828, Count Moritz Sandor contacted Marc Isambard Brunel (but Isambard Kingdom Brunel was only 22 at the time, so would have been too young to get involved).

In 1832, Széchenyi and Count Andrassy went to England and met Rennie, Telford and Marc Isambard Brunel.

But, despite these contacts, it's not clear at what date the Brunel design was prepared.

No mention of the bridge appears in IKB's sketchbook, so, as you say, it seems more likely the design was MIB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humphries Brewer’s obituary would have been written by people who knew him and his life. His obituary mentions Brewer’s time in Egypt and the Near East but makes no mention of the Danube bridge or the Thames tunnel.

What about this, which was mentioned in at least two previous posts?

The Corning Journal, Thu 16 Jan 1868

The Wellsboro papers contain an obituary notice of the late Humphries BreWer, . . . He came to this country twenty years ago, having been previously engaged as a civil engineer in constructing a bridge over the Danube

Why not? These would have been landmark achievements in anyone’s life and the people closest to Brewer would undoubtedly have been aware of these ‘achievements’ since Brewer, if such were true, most certainly would have told them about it. But his close family and friends at this time knew nothing about these ‘achievements’ and we have to ask why? We have to conclude that the answer is because Brewer himself made no such claim (and would have been a complete daftie to have done so since those other engineers he worked with--those in the know--would have known the truth and Brewer would have known that he would not have been able to fool such people).

Which other engineers did he work with?

How would they have known whether anything he said about his previous life in Europe was true or not?

The first attribution of these ‘achievements’ (in so far as I am presently aware) comes from here. This publication appeared some 22 years after Brewer’s death. Unfortunately there is no source for their information. (I am presently trying to track that down but do not hold out much hope).

As previously mentioned, it was most probably Mary Christie, Brewer's daughter.

Why would this ‘official’ account of the Monona County make such a claim when Brewer’s own obituary (written by the people that were closest to him and new him best) made no such claims? Did the editor of this book, long after Brewer’s death, decide unilaterally to embellish one of the district’s sons with false achievements?

Monona County, where Mary Christie eventually settled with her husband after their marriage, is in Iowa, nearly a thousand miles away from her previous home in Pennsylvania, so Brewer was hardly 'one of the district’s sons'.

Anyone of the later generations of Brewer’s family who may have been researching the family’s origins would have come across this information in this book (published 1890) and likely accepted its content on face value. We will probably never know how or why this attribution came to be placed on Humphries Brewer but it seems that it was made by others who did not know him.

You're saying his daughter didn't know him?

The accuracy of the information in Bartlett might be debatable. But Mary Humphries Brewer Christie is the most likely source. But she was too young to have directly known anything of her father's previous life. Like others, she relied on what she was told as a child and young girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Humphries Brewer’s obituary would have been written by people who knew him and his life. His obituary mentions Brewer’s time in Egypt and the Near East but makes no mention of the Danube bridge or the Thames tunnel.

WP: What about this, which was mentioned in at least two previous posts?

The Corning Journal, Thu 16 Jan 1868

The Wellsboro papers contain an obituary notice of the late Humphries BreWer, . . . He came to this country twenty years ago, having been previously engaged as a civil engineer in constructing a bridge over the Danube

SC: Can you present the primary source for the above statement? Can you present an edition of ‘The Corning Journal’ of that date that actually states the above?

Here is the actual edition of the ‘Watkins Express’ where Hunphries Brewer’s obituary was presented (as copied from the Wellsboro Herald) dated 16tth Jan, 1868:

Humphries Brewer Obituary

No Danube Bridge.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humphries Brewer’s obituary would have been written by people who knew him and his life. . . .

Oh, come on!

. . . The writer of this article is not sufficiently acquainted with the earlier parts of his life to give a correct history of it. . . .

Try reading.

M.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You claim a point for the egyptologist because they showed Scott that Sitchin was wrong about Hill Fascimile, doesn't seem fair.

Third eye suggested that we can also consult someone who knows calligraphy to better interpret the Cartouche, it might hold clues to how it was painted and who did it.

The actual analysis of the Cartouche is still going on and is independant of what Sitchin said about the Hill fascimile.

Completely wrong. Go back and read my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was that you were saying about "experts"?

That you keep trying to be one, on the strength of stuff you’ve just Googled.

Thanks for making my point for me.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Humphries Brewer’s obituary would have been written by people who knew him and his life. . . .

MS: Oh, come on!

. . . The writer of this article is not sufficiently acquainted with the earlier parts of his life to give a correct history of it. . . .

SC: What? You really think the writer of the obituary wrote the piece in complete isolation without asking any of his family about his past life, what his major life achievements were? So they knew about some obscure part of his life in Egypt but nothing at all about a prestigious engineering achievement? How naïve can you possibly be?

MS: Try reading.

SC: Try thinking.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Can you present the primary source for the above statement? Can you present an edition of ‘The Corning Journal’ of that date that actually states the above?

The Corning Journal, January 16, 1868: http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2012/Corning%20NY%20Journal/Corning%20NY%20Journal%201866-1868%20Grayscale/Corning%20NY%20Journal%201866-1868%20Grayscale%20-%200434.pdf

He came to this

country twenty years ago, having been

previously engaged as a civil engineer

in constructing a bridge over the Danube

By the way, when you give a primary source, it would be better to give the actual link, rather than a link to a copy placed on your own website.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Can you present the primary source for the above statement? Can you present an edition of ‘The Corning Journal’ of that date that actually states the above?

The Corning Journal, January 16, 1868: http://fultonhistory...cale - 0434.pdf

He came to this country twenty years ago, having been previously engaged as a civil engineer in constructing a bridge over the Danube.

SC: Thank you for that. First of all it is at variance with the actual Obituary published in the Watkins Express. This is a second-hand account of the actual obituary “…the Wellsboro papers contain an obituary notice of the late Humphries Brewer…” No mention in this secondary report of a prize. No mention in this secondary account of the Thames Tunnel? No mention either of Brewer’s ‘prize winning design’ or that he was in charge of anything. He was “…engaged as a civil engineer in constructing a bridge over the Danube…” Every person who worked in the construction phase of the bridge would have been employed “…in constructing a bridge over the Danube …” Doesn’t mean or even imply that Brewer was responsible for building it. This secondary account doesn’t even give the name of the bridge. Do we have a record anywhere of every single person employed to actually build W. T. Clark’s bridge? Brewer could have been employed on it for a day, a week, a month. Would anyone know? Would his employment on it be written down in personnel records anywhere?

Irna: By the way, when you give a primary source, it would be better to give the actual link, rather than a link to a copy placed on your own website.

SC: Normally I do but given that I will be using some of this material for my next book, I have saved it to my own site for ease of referencing. I have often found in the past that such useful information can disappear, never to be found again. Hence why I post it to my own site. Thanks again for the Corning Journal piece—very useful.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.