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

This is a second-hand account of the actual obituary

As is the Watkins Express' one, unless you can compare with the original.

The point is, at the time of Brewer's death, the legend of his having constructing a bridge over the Danube was already circulating.

You can construct any fiction you want about Brewer's story, his participation in the construction of the bridge in Budapest (not to mention his "design" of it and the "prize" he is said to have received) is not attested nowhere; nor is his actual meeting with Howard Vyse, even if he actually travelled in Egypt.

The only mention of Brewer having worked with Howard Vyse is in Mr. Allen's notes; and it is perfectly clear that these notes can't be relied on, as shown by their mention of the "prize for bridge he designed in Vienna".

Edited by Irna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try thinking.

Try it yourself.

You’re making a claim about the writer which the writer explicitly disavowed. Again:

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

And Creighton, the family may have had other things on their minds than talking to a reporter.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Who was making “slanderous” allegations against Howard-Vyse and what was the precise nature of this “slander”? He doesn’t say.

You should read Howard Vyse entirely: you would have found the answer.

See Volume 2, page 152 to 176.

And before you use this material in further smearing of Howard Vyse's personality, try to remember that Caviglia himself was not a saint: none of these early "egyptologists", in fact explorers, adventurers, collectors and treasure hunters, was.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. . . .

He kept it, then?

So where’s Humphries Brewer’s prize (as per his daughter, Mary Humphries Christie née Brewer) or decoration (as per his eldest son, William Marchant Brewer)?

Surely it would be an important family heirloom?

Where, for that matter, is his certificate from the University of Berlin? Surely that would be kept, if a bunch of old letters was?

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following up Creighton’s helpful indication that the Fulton History site has added the Watkins Express, I find there is more about Humphries Brewer and that bridge:

http://fultonhistory...1866 - 0309.pdf

It is of course possible that Humphries Brewer, through the connections established at Box, found work in some capacity on the project—but there is no corroboration of this, and plainly the family legend credits him with far more.

M.

Which prompted me to place the reports in chronological order:

Presumable source: Humphries Brewer himself?

Document: Watkins Express, Thu 6 Aug 1865

The Engineer and General Superintendent of the Mines is Mr. Humphrey [sic] Brewer, who lives in a large white house on a knoll near by. He is an Englishman by birth, and was an Assistant Engineer in the construction of a Suspension Bridge over the broad waters of the Danube. . . .

Presumable source: uncertain

Document: 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. . . .

Presumable source: Mary Humphries Brewer (Christie)

Document: History of Monona County, Iowa (Chicago: National Publishing Company, 1890)

. . . 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. . . .

The earliest, which appeared during Humphries Brewer’s lifetime, plainly has the strongest claim to represent something he said about himself.

The sequence in toto suggests a tale which grew in the telling.

M.

Edited by mstower
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: This is a second-hand account of the actual obituary

Irna: As is the Watkins Express' one, unless you can compare with the original.

SC: No—that would make the Corning Journal’s account third hand.

Irna: The point is, at the time of Brewer's death, the legend of his having constructing a bridge over the Danube was already circulating.

SC: Nonsense. There is no mention of such in Brewer’s actual obituary. A very glaring omission I would have thought. The ‘myth’ of a ‘prize design’ and the ‘Thames Tunnel’ and actually being responsible for building the bridge is not mentioned anywhere in these early accounts.

Irna: You can construct any fiction you want about Brewer's story, his participation in the construction of the bridge in Budapest (not to mention his "design" of it and the "prize" he is said to have received) is not attested nowhere;

SC: Well, that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? Why would these design prizes etc be attested any where? Someone, somewhere along the line, some time after Brewer’s death made this up because it is not attested in Brewer’s own Obituary (and it would have been had Brewer told his family and friends about it, which he would have done had he done such a marvelous thing). The only thing that has been said about this at the time of Brewer’s death comes from the Corning Journal who merely state that Brewer was engaged as a civil engineer in the construction of a bridge over the Danube. That’s it! That is like saying Joe Bloggs was engaged as a labourer in the construction of a bridge over the Danube. Without personnel records from the time, we will not be able to determine the veracity of that particular question but it may well be true and it may well have been at the root of the later crossed-wires in the 1890 Monona County publication and thence by the later family.

Irna: …nor is his actual meeting with Howard Vyse, even if he actually travelled in Egypt.

SC: This is the one piece of evidence that Brewer’s obituary does state—that he went to Egypt. Walter Allen’s family ‘notes’ talks about Brewer going to Egypt with Dr Naylor who, as far as I can tell, wanted to have an eye hospital built there. This man and his mission is actually mentioned by Howard-Vyse in his Journal, thus corroborating that part of Walter Allen’s family record. I see little reason to doubt this.

Irna: The only mention of Brewer having worked with Howard Vyse is in Mr. Allen's notes; and it is perfectly clear that these notes can't be relied on, as shown by their mention of the "prize for bridge he designed in Vienna"

SC: This was a family tradition that had been passed down for generations. They probably found the erroneous information about the prize bridge design in the 1890 Monona County book and simply accepted that information from that source on good faith. But that book was not the source for the other comment’s in Walter Allen’s family account. There are clearly different sources for different aspects of this account. So we dismiss all of this family account simply because one completely unrelated source refering to a completely separate aspect of Brewer's life was found wanting? Is that what you are saying? No—the proper thing to do is to keep digging and keep asking questions until, hopefully, we get nearer to the absolute truth in all of this.

Or perhaps you would much prefer that we stop digging? You never know what skeleton might be dug up. But I, for one, fully intend to keep digging.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They probably found the erroneous information about the prize bridge design in the 1890 Monona County book and simply accepted that information from that source on good faith.

What is this drivel? What the book contains is a profile of Lawrence Elias Christie, who married Mary Humphries Brewer, Humphries Brewer’s second daughter. That she is the source of the information about her father is far closer to a practical certainty than your claims about “the” obituary being based on family sources.

(What is this nonsense about “the” obituary? Do you think this is The Highlander? “There can be only one.”)

And again, the claim that Humphries Brewer was “decorated by the king for the building of a bridge across the Danube at Budapest” appeared in a profile of William Marchant Brewer, Humphries Brewer’s eldest son, a profile which appeared during his lifetime. That William Marchant Brewer is the source of the claims about his father is, again, close to a practical certainty.

These are as strong attestations to the tradition passed on by Humphries Brewer’s children as we could reasonably ask for.

M.

Edited by mstower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MS: What is this drivel? What the book contains is a profile of Lawrence Elias Christie, who married Mary Humphries Brewer, Humphries Brewer’s second daughter.

SC: What a detection. We really should be calling you Sherlock.

MS: That she is the source of the information about her father is far closer to a practical certainty than your claims about “the” obituary being based on family sources.

SC: “Far closer”? Can you quantify that precisely for us? And eh - don’t families, friends and work colleagues contribute to obituaries? Oh look – no mention by the family, friends or colleagues about design prizes for Danube Bridges. Why do you think they all neglected to mention that major event in the obituary? Pray tell us, oh great Sherlock.

MS: (What is this nonsense about “the” obituary? Do you think this is The Highlander? “There can be only one.”)

SC: Well, I’d be very happy to see any other obituaries written for Humphries Brewer if you can source them?

MS: And again, the claim that Humphries Brewer was “decorated by the king for the building of a bridge across the Danube at Budapest” appeared in a profile of William Marchant Brewer, Humphries Brewer’s eldest son, a profile which appeared during his lifetime. That William Marchant Brewer is the source of the claims about his father is, again, close to a practical certainty.

SC: And not a single peep in HB’s obituary. A rather glaring omission, I would say. The family must have been mortified at such a glaring oversight. And eh – exactly how close is “close to a practical certainty”? Care to quantify that more exactly for us? I, for one, would be ever so grateful.

MS: These are as strong attestations to the tradition passed on by Humphries Brewer’s children as we could reasonably ask for.

SC Twaddle-dee, and twaddle-dum.

You have to do better than this.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
699c7dcbef0c.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

699c7dcbef0c.gif

I think I understand what you're feeling...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I understand what you're feeling...

b1fd837e28de.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Final Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 9

SC

Presenting evidence and having it accepted as True are two different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presenting evidence and having it accepted as True are two different things.

Especially then when it takes five minutes to conclude that the evidence is constructed based on the existing reality...

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?

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

Fallbrook Railway Company website http://fallbrookrailway.com/news.shtml Citing the Corning Journal

January 16, 1868 - The Wellsboro papers contain an obituary notice of the late Humphries Brewer, Superintendent of the Fall Brook mines. He was a native of England, and was in the fifty-first year of his age at his death. He came to this country twenty years ago, having been previously engaged as a civil engineer in constructing a bridge over the Danube ... by his judgement, Hon. John Magee was guided in the purchase of land in which the Fall Brook mines lie, and all that has been done to develop the extensive coal beds there, has been under his direction. Mr Magee once informed us that in every instance, explorations for coal had more than justified the statements of Mr. Brewer. His sagacity and judgement directed the enormously expansive operations, which have made the Fall Brook mines one of the best paying coal properties in the country. (Corning Journal)

You can also find references to it in the following:

History of Monona Count Iowa (1890) http://books.google.com/books?id=b3kUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA661&lpg=PA661&dq=Humphries+Brewer+danube+bridge&source=bl&ots=C-YQQCwb31&sig=XK90wR0aJkGkevykRqgRwyD9j2w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a9p_UfDoL9io4APXn4FY&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Humphries%20Brewer%20danube%20bridge&f=false

Journeys to the Mythical Past (Sitchin) http://books.google.com/books?id=mPNg4nfp-6YC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=Humphries+Brewer+danube+bridge&source=bl&ots=Lb-jQXiX8K&sig=lGfWp2Skw51TXyNgZO72EBKEHgc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a9p_UfDoL9io4APXn4FY&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Humphries%20Brewer%20danube%20bridge&f=false

Yes indeed a Danube bridge.

You are using a standard fringe tactic. You are citing one reference written by someone who admits he doesn't know everything about Brewer's past and since it doesn't mention the bridge you assume that means he never worked on a bridge over the Danube. At the same time you are dismissing multiple citations, including those from family members themselves, that include references to Brewer's work on the Danube bridge.

You mentioned earlier that it was ridiculous for the writer of the obituary to have not asked the family about details but when you see one or more of the family members mention the bridge and the obituary writer not mention it, then that's exactly what you have. The writer of the obituary wrote from what he knew and evidently didn't confer with family members.

Edited by Quaentum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fallbrook Railway Company website http://fallbrookrailway.com/news.shtml Citing the Corning Journal

Yes indeed a Danube bridge.

SC: You're a bit late to the party. Already been discussed. Suggest you read all the previous posts.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: You're a bit late to the party. Already been discussed. Suggest you read all the previous posts.

SC

Edited my post to add more, suggest you reread it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: What a detection. We really should be calling you Sherlock.

You have an objection? A refutation? Why don’t you state it?

Just because you don’t know the family tree, doesn’t mean I don’t.

SC: “Far closer”? Can you quantify that precisely for us?

I’ve not noticed you doing this. You want Bayesian or something?

The relevant points have been stated already. Putting numbers on them would merely be a pseudo-mathematisation.

Rational people would give weight to a specific family member being identifiable.

And eh - don’t families, friends and work colleagues contribute to obituaries?

And eh?

Not always. They’re usually written by journalists, using various sources. You’re trying to short-circuit the evidential question by invoking procedural knowledge which may or may not apply.

Oh look – no mention by the family, friends or colleagues about design prizes for Danube Bridges.

Care to cite directly these statements of family, friends and colleagues?

Why do you think they all neglected to mention that major event in the obituary? Pray tell us, oh great Sherlock.

Oh, so the anonymous obituary is now a joint effort, is it? Because you say so?

Where did you get this bizarre idea that an obituary is a comprehensive biography?

I recognise no obligation to explain the content of your fantasies.

SC: Well, I’d be very happy to see any other obituaries written for Humphries Brewer if you can source them?

Google not working, then?

Try thinking.

SC: And not a single peep in HB’s obituary. A rather glaring omission, I would say. The family must have been mortified at such a glaring oversight. And eh – exactly how close is “close to a practical certainty”? Care to quantify that more exactly for us? I, for one, would be ever so grateful.

I dare say the family may have been preoccupied with their grief. Not that someone devoid of decency as you are would get this.

SC Twaddle-dee, and twaddle-dum.

See what I mean?

You have to do better than this.

Says the man who needed goading into looking beyond Sitchin.

M.

Edited by mstower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: You're a bit late to the party. Already been discussed. Suggest you read all the previous posts.

SC

Quaentum has taken the trouble to explain to you a point you’re still failing (for no good reason) to grasp.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaentum has taken the trouble to explain to you a point you’re still failing (for no good reason) to grasp.

M.

He has a good reason: His newest brain maxturbation dissolves into dust if you guys are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The snake-oil seller is too blockheaded and full of his own self-righteousness and pomposity to listen to anything except his own voice. There was a smell of death about his posts since № 1. He is this, but does not yet realise bddc84801208.gif

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again we go barking up the wrong tree, why discuss whether Humphrey Brewer build a bridge on the Danube? His orbituary may be right about certain facts and wrong about some.

It doesn't help us in anyway to prove that the Cartouche's in the GP were original and not forged by Vyse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again we go barking up the wrong tree, why discuss whether Humphrey Brewer build a bridge on the Danube?

Because we’re discussing the reliability of the family tradition—a tradition which is being invoked as evidence on the forgery question.

M.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mentioned earlier that it was ridiculous for the writer of the obituary to have not asked the family about details but when you see one or more of the family members mention the bridge and the obituary writer not mention it, then that's exactly what you have. The writer of the obituary wrote from what he knew and evidently didn't confer with family members.

When Humphries Brewer died (on Christmas Day, 1867), his family in the USA comprised, not just his wife and children, but also his younger brother Robert (born 1823) and his sister Jane (born 1826). They surely would have known plenty about “the earlier parts of his life”—from personal experience and from what they’d been told. (I know about events in my brother’s life which happened before I was born.)

If the obituarist had access to their input, why the disclaimer?

We may note some other omissions:

Nothing about his parents.

Nothing about his marriage.

Nothing about his children.

Setting aside the panegyric tone, it’s really quite a dry and impersonal sketch (Humphries Brewer the professional man and pillar of his community), short on precisely those details we’d expect family informants to emphasise.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we’re discussing the reliability of the family tradition—a tradition which is being invoked as evidence on the forgery question.

M.

Mere testimony by a great great great grandchild will not be considered as evidence even if true. Sitchin talked about the letter sent to him by Allen confirming the fraud, if this was evidence enough then why are we debating it? In this search whatever the outcome is, the validity of the testimony will never change any mainstream views.Something more material is required. Yes if the debate is only about proving Sitchin wrong about his claims related to this issue then it makes sense otherwise it is futile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mere testimony by a great great great grandchild

In fact, Walter Allen was the great-grandson of Humphries Brewer.

will not be considered as evidence even if true.

For the case to be watertight, there would need to be corroborative evidence of some sort.

Sitchin talked about the letter sent to him by Allen confirming the fraud, if this was evidence enough then why are we debating it?

Because some people consider that Allen's notes about a family tradition are in fact evidence. But they're only evidence of a tradition - not evidence of fact. If there were letters from Humphries Brewer stating that he'd been witness to a fraud (although none have so far been produced), that might be of some help. But, ideally, you would need other witness statements as well, not just one - especially given the existence of other forms of historical and graphic evidence contradicting the allegation of forgery.

In this search whatever the outcome is, the validity of the testimony will never change any mainstream views.Something more material is required. Yes if the debate is only about proving Sitchin wrong about his claims related to this issue then it makes sense otherwise it is futile.

The mainstream view is that the Great Pyramid is Khufu's tomb, in which teams of workers left quarry-marks that used 'Khufu' as part of the various team names. If there is other evidence that proves something different, then fine. But where is it? Sitchin's theories about Nibiru and alien spaceships aren't even worthy of comment IMO.

1 person likes this

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.