GP Hoax - New Evidence of Vyse Forgery

[Scott Creighton]

First of all this is NEW evidence and has nothing whatsoever to do with the baseless claim of Sitchin. The evidence presented here comes from an entirely different source to Sitchin's flawed claim. The evidence here is from no less credible a source than Colonel Vyse's very own handwritten journal (not his published book) of his time in Egypt in 1837.

The file is a PDF download (1.13mb).

The Great Pyramid Hoax

Let the fireworks commence. I shall try and respond to constructive comments. Those comments attempting to shoot the messenger or otherwise laced with invective or ad hominems will not be responded to.

SC

Note: This is only some of the evidence I have found in Vyse's diary pointing to fraud perpetrated by Vyse and his team at Giza in 1837. There is additional highly incriminating evidence which will be presented in due course.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[SHaYap]

Not convinced of the sequence attributed to the entries ~ the circumstances regarding the first initial entries may just be an early study or from daily reports before a thorough study of the glyphs was possible ~ would also explain the references to Campbell's Chamber ~ the only entrance then available to the crawlspace above ~

~

[Scott Creighton]

Hello Third Eye,

Vyse offers this in his published book from 27th May, the day he first entered Campbell's Chamber:

"The chamber over Lady Arbuthnot's (subsequently called Campbell's) was opened and minutely examined." (My emphasis)

SC: It is unlikely that Vyse would have missed the lines in the disc that we see there today. Remember, Vyse drew this Khufu cartouche with the unhatched disc TWICE in his handwritten journal - first on 27th May and then again three weeks later on 16th June. It is only after Vyse learns of the Khufu cartouches with hatched discs from the Tomb of the Trades that the first appearance of a Khufu cartouche with hatched disc is presented in his handwritten journal.

Regards,

SC

Edited August 7, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[Bennu]

As I understand it, Egyptologists didn't even know about the format of quarry work gang names in Vyse's day. Why would Vyse be able to write them perfectly and why would he go to such length when all he really had to do was draw the cartouche, just one format of it rather than two different formats, the one with the ram and the one with the snake? Are we to believe that he risked being caught up there doing all that complicated writing when all he had to do was draw the single cartouche with the snake? And are we to believe that he took the time to write all that other stuff up there, on various levels, as well? If he didn't write all that other stuff then he didn't even need to do any forging because there were already Khufu cartouches and other 4th Dynasty related writing up there.

It's been pretty much settled that the relieving chamber glyphs are original. You're one of the last holdouts. When even Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval have stopped tilting at that windmill you know it's time to give it up. They wouldn't have ceased their silliness if they thought there was the slightest chance that they could continue flogging it. And whoever took samples of the ochre would have announced on CNN that it was 12,000 years old if testing had shown that. Instead, we've heard nothing.

From your PDF presentation, all I need say is that the drawing of the vertical cartouche from the Tomb of Trades ALSO has no lines in the circle. He simply made a separate drawing of the circle WITH the lines (actually two such drawings) in the same entry to indicate that this is how they look in detail. In other words, he sometimes would draw the cartouches without lines in the circle simply because he didn't need that much detail. He knew the lines were in there and it was his notebook so why would he have to draw the lines for himself to know they were in there? The reason he said that the cartouche in the pyramid was different is because they weren't drawn exactly the same way as that vertical cartouche he noted in the Tomb. It was instead a horizontal cartouche which happened to be vertical after it was positioned, hence the different format. He obviously was not referring to the lines being the difference when there are other much larger differences.And he didn't make an "X" at the bottom of his cartouche drawing. Those marks aren't even the same thickness as the actual ink writing and are clearly just cracks or blemishes just like all those other lines all over the book pages. Vyse didn't even have a pen capable of making hairline markings. Besides, it's only on the outline of the cartouche. If it's an X it simply indicates that he shouldn't have made a double lined oval because the actual cartouche has a single lined oval. The X is nowhere near the circle so why associate it with it? This whole thing is just weak. You're whole case is negated by Vyse simply being too lazy to actually draw the lines in the circles every time he drew the cartouche. It's that easy to explain away.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Bennu

[seeder]

First of all this is NEW evidence and has nothing whatsoever to do with the baseless claim of Sitchin. The evidence presented here comes from an entirely different source to Sitchin's flawed claim. The evidence here is from no less credible a source than Colonel Vyse's very own handwritten journal (not his published book) of his time in Egypt in 1837.

The file is a PDF download (1.13mb).

The Great Pyramid Hoax

Let the fireworks commence. I shall try and respond to constructive comments. Those comments attempting to shoot the messenger or otherwise laced with invective or ad hominems will not be responded to.

SC

Note: This is only some of the evidence I have found in Vyse's diary pointing to fraud perpetrated by Vyse and his team at Giza in 1837. There is additional highly incriminating evidence which will be presented in due course.

A 44 page pdf?

Could you be so kind as to just make a bullet list here?

[Bennu]

There is also this;

"The name Khnum Khufu is found in the second chamber, and almost destroyed by Vyse,

when he entered the chamber [Petrie]." http://www.khufu.dk/...name-family.htm

How did he almost destroy it if he drew it himself AFTER blasting his way in?

Also, why would he purposely draw two dots under the snake when those aren't even real hieroglyphs but simply dirtying up the stone with sloppy ochre work? If he drew it there would be no dots. He copied them because they APPEARED to be part of it. There are, in fact, plenty of those kind of smudges all over the stone. There is much more reason to believe the cartouche is real than fake.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Bennu

[Aardvark-DK]

I read it, and thought, "So ?"...but what are the implications ? If this is true that is...

[Hanslune]

So why not present all the information - oh wait you have to spring a book on us all later, lol. So you 're going around posting the same stuff on different websites. Nothing wrong with that I guess but...

If anyone wants to see his arguments in advance PM me and I'll send you a link to another forum where he covered the same thing, and got shredded.

If you want to be amused look at this other fellows website:

Truth is Stranger than Fiction website by Rick Richards

http://www.rickrichards.com/Egypt.htm

Notice anything similar to what Scot is saying?

Edited August 7, 2014 by Hanslune

[Scott Creighton]

So why not present all the information - oh wait you have to spring a book on us all later, lol. So you 're going around posting the same stuff on different websites. Nothing wrong with that I guess but...

If anyone wants to see his arguments in advance PM me and I'll send you a link to another forum where he covered the same thing, and got shredded.

If you want to be amused look at this other fellows website:

Truth is Stranger than Fiction website by Rick Richards

http://www.rickrichards.com/Egypt.htm

Notice anything similar to what Scot is saying?

Hello Hanslune,

Shredded elsewher? Really? If that's the case then you will have no difficulty in emulating that here, will you? Let's see you try.

Rick Richards? If you can show anyone here on Richards' site a copy of Vyse's handwritten journal (the evidence I am presenting here and the basis of my claim) then I shall be mighty impressed. Hmm... didn't think so.

SC

Edited August 7, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[Hanslune]

Hello Hanslune,

Shredded elsewher? Really? If that's the case then you will have no difficulty in emulating that here, will you? Let's see you try.

Rick Richards? If you can show anyone here on Richards' site a copy of Vyse's handwritten journal (the evidence I am presenting here and the basis of my claim) then I shall be mighty impressed. Hmm... didn't think so.

SC

You self shred - here is a question why are you presenting the same information again that was shown to be wrong previously?

Yep and RR has a theory similar to yours did you acknowledge his earlier contribution? I mean you both are just putting lipstick on Sitchin's dead and decayed pig

Let me save everyone a lot of time and effort:

Scot will say this and that, misrepresent this and that then end with final paramount and unbeatable arguments - "its possible isn't it?"

To which I reply yes its possible in the same way it is possible that you are Benito Mussolini's great grandson - that's possible too isn't it?

Edited August 7, 2014 by Hanslune

[Scott Creighton]

You self shred - here is a question why are you presenting the same information again that was shown to be wrong previously?

Yep and RR has a theory similar to yours did you acknowledge his earlier contribution? I mean you both are just putting lipstick on Sitchin's dead and decayed pig

Hanslune,

Stop attempting to revert to evidence that has been debunked years ago and deal with the evidence being presented NOW. The thread here is not about Sitchin''s evidence or Richards' evidence. It is about the NEW evidence I have uncovered and present in this thread.

I can understand why you might wish to try and conflate Sitchin and Richards with what is being presented by ME today but it isn't going to wash.

SC

Edited August 7, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[questionmark]

Hanslune,

Stop attempting to revert to evidence that has been debunked years ago and deal with the evidence being presented NOW. The thread here is not about Sitchin''s evidence or Richards' evidence. It is about the NEW evidence I have uncovered and present in this thread.

I can understand why you might wish to try and conflate Sitchin and Richards with what is being presented by ME today but it isn't going to wash.

SC

Could it be that he is trying to imply that YOU ( Caps to keep up with your esteem level) might have gotten to the same erroneous conclusion by the same lack of information?

[Hanslune]

Hanslune,

Stop attempting to revert to evidence that has been debunked years ago and deal with the evidence being presented NOW. The thread here is not about Sitchin''s evidence or Richards' evidence. It is about the NEW evidence I have uncovered and present in this thread.

I can understand why you might wish to try and conflate Sitchin and Richards with what is being presented by ME today but it isn't going to wash.

SC

You mean the same old evidence that was debunked previously - you want to go over it all again and see if it comes out good this time?

lol

Yeah your idea is derivative of Sitchin and RR, they failed and you failed also.

Go back to that other website where we just finished discussing the same thing - what are you going to say that is different?

Nothing

It basically says, here is my conclusion, here are some distorted facts now please please believe in the possibility that I'm correct?

That's it in a nutshell isn't it?

[Hanslune]

Could it be that he is trying to imply that YOU ( Caps to keep up with your esteem level) might have gotten to the same erroneous conclusion by the same lack of information?

He has a high drama queen genetic make up. He actually seems to believe if he presents the same stuff over and over again somewhere someplace it will be believed.....that and an attempt to generate 'marketing' buzz for his next book.

Here's an idea Scot why don't you go away and come back once you fell you can tell us what this 'new information is' - until then what's the point?

Oh wait your gigantic ego needs to be fed! lol

So when will we see this fabulous new information?

[Scott Creighton]

It basically says, here is my conclusion, here are some distorted facts now please please believe in the possibility that I'm correct?

That's it in a nutshell isn't it?

Hanslune,

I'll keep it simple for you. Here is the Khufu cartouche as it appears in Campbell's Chamber today:

Note the three lines in the disc in the above Khufu cartouche. That is what we see today in Campbell's Chamber.

Now can you tell us, Hanslune, why would Vyse draw in his handwritten journal on TWO separate occasions a Khufu cartouche without ANY of the hatched lines that we observe in the chamber today? Here's one of them:

You can see the other in the PDF file. Why would Vyse miss out the detail of these three lines when he obviously considers detail essential as we can see by his inclusion of the two smaller dots (which are actually a mistake and not part of the king's name) under the snake glyph?

Care to explain it for us, Hanslune?

SC

Edited August 7, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[questionmark]

Hanslune,

I'll keep it simple for you. Here is the Khufu cartouche as it appears in Campbell's Chamber today:

Note the the three lines in the disc in the above Khufu cartouche. That is what we see today in Campbell's Chamber.

Now can you tell us, Hanslune, why would Vyse draw on TWO separate occasions a Khufu cartouche without ANY of the hatched lines that we observe in the chamber today? Here's one of them:

You can see the other in the PDF file. Why would Vyse miss out the detail of these three lines when he obviously considers detail essential as we can see by his inclusion of the two smaller dots under the snake glyph?

Care to explain it for us, Hanslune?

SC

May I ask if you lack attention span? We had this before and well, i I may be so bold as to say so, you were not very successful in convincing anybody with the slightest notion about ancient Egypt.

Can I recommend you read your old thread again and the point out the "new evidence". To the contrary of others who seem to be ruminants, we don't have any fun seeing the same regurgitated story over and over again.

Thank you.

[Scott Creighton]

May I ask if you lack attention span? We had this before ...

SC: Really? Care to show where I have previously posted images from the personal handwritten diary of Howard Vyse on this forum? That is the evidence being discussed here. Do you read ANYTHING?

I won't hold my breathe as I suspect you will be quite some time searching.

SC

Edited August 7, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[questionmark]

SC: Really? Care to show where I have previously posted images from the personal handwritten diary of Howard Vyse on this forum? That is the evidence being discussed here. Do you read ANYTHING?

I won't hold my breathe as I suspect you will be quite some time searching.

SC

You don't have to, because it contributes nothing of value to the discussion. Even if Vyse would have smeared a cartouche in the relieving chamber the others in places inaccessible to paint brushes still don't go away... unless of course you want to claim that Vyse took apart half the pyramid just to deny you your "brilliant" idea.

And they seem to indicate all the same thing, and that is, to the contrary of your "evidence", the thing was not built 10 500 years ago.

Edited August 7, 2014 by questionmark

[Scott Creighton]

You don't have to, because it contributes nothing of value to the discussion. Even if Vyse would have smeared a cartouche in the relieving chamber the others in places inaccessible to paint brushes still don't go away... unless of course you want to claim that Vyse took apart half the pyramid just to deny you your "brilliant" idea.

And they seem to indicate all the same thing, and that is, to the contrary of your "evidence", the thing was not built 10 500 years ago.

SC: So, when you cannot respond to this NEW evidence with anything constructive you simply avoid it. Telling.

And, eh, do show me where I say the "thing" was constructed 10,500 years ago? Don't hold your breathe while searching--we don't want any fatalities.

SC

[questionmark]

SC: So, when you cannot respond to this NEW evidence with anything constructive you simply avoid it. Telling.

And, eh, do show me where I say the "thing" was constructed 10,500 years ago? Don't hold your breathe while searching--we don't want any fatalities.

SC

Excuse me, 10 500 BC, so I guess you are slightly "more wrong", and that was while you were trying to push your "wonderful" Sirius belt theory down our throats.

[Scott Creighton]

Excuse me, 10 500 BC, so I guess you are slightly "more wrong", and that was while you were trying to push your "wonderful" Sirius belt theory down our throats.

Utter nonsense. This is what they resort to folks when they have no cogent answer to the evidence that is actually being presented. Ignore and obfuscate.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[Perceptivum]

Here's my two cents, and I expect change back!

There only appears to be an apparent contradiction on the surface. But when you look at both cartouches there is more that is different than the circle (either blank or with hashes, one or double lines). First, the "birds", they look like birds to me, are drawn differently; the snake is a bit longer in length (relative to the cartouche) in the first drawing; and there is a line through the first drawing. Is this feeding more into your apparent contradiction theory? No, because in my mind since this dude had no eraser, he was doing the best he could with what he had. Moreover, unless you knew the dude (highly unlikely) or knew someone who was with him when he was writing in his journal (again, highly unlikely) you actually have no idea what he was thinking or feeling about the cartouche at the time. You are merely projecting your own opinion upon some strange drawings. He could have knowledge that he didn't write down in his journal because he didn't need to, because he was there. Bottom-line, what you found was merely an example of why people have erasers...

[questionmark]

Utter nonsense. This is what they resort to folks when they have no cogent answer to the evidence that is actually being presented. Ignore and obfuscate.

OOps my bad, it seems to be 20,000 years:

Curiously, this 20,000 year age is supported with my own recent research. I am presently trying to get more information on this to establish exactly what tests have been done on the sample and the results. (And no--I absolutely do not condone the actions of these two 'adventurers').

SC

Source

Must have confused you with some other quack....

[Scott Creighton]

Bottom-line, what you found was merely an example of why people have erasers...

SC: Why would Vyse require an eraser for something he hasn't actually drawn i.e. the three hatched lines in the circle of the Khufu cartouches in his journal? Why did he leave these out TWICE? Why, on the 16th June, is he contemplating the hatched disc THREE WEEKS after **ahem** 'discovering' this cartouche?

The line through the cartouche is a copy editor's line (most likely made when the manuscript was being prepared for publication) and we see these throughout his entire journal (all 600 pages of it); every single page has a scorethrough down its centre as has most of the graphics Vyse has drawn.

SC

Edited August 7, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

OOps my bad, it seems to be 20,000 years:

Must have confused you with some other quack....

Well done. And yes, there's evidence at Giza to support the date of 16,980 BCE for the cinstruction but that's another discussion. Now--back to the matter at hand.

SC