Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid

[+DieChecker]

SC: Indeed. And this is what Humphries Brewer has said. "Faint marks were repainted, some were new." And it was this activity of Hill and Raven that he had a dispute about. It hardly seems credible that he had a dispute about painting the names of 'Arbuthnot', 'Campbell' etc. And how would these names have faded so soon? And why describe known names as "marks"?

Talk about contaminating the crime scene!!

SC

The same Humphries Brewer who can not be shown to have actually worked with Vyres. The same Humphries Brewer who's letters disappeared, and were the only evidence of such?

How can you even put quote marks around that statement?

Looking around the Internet, I see a lot of people quoting this guy, Brewer, and no one backing up any of his statements. All I want is some proof that this guy Ever even existed.

Supposedly these letters turned up in 1983 when Sitchen went looking for proof of his ideas. Sitchen, from what I can tell, is the only writer/Egyptologist who ever saw these letters. There is motive to fake the letters right there... Sitchen faked lots of stuff, or glaringly misrepresented evidence to favor his ideas.

Unless these letters can be found, I would think that the concensus must simply be that what is supposedly written in them has to be ignored. To do otherwise is to accept open hearsay as actual evidence. I suppose it is fine for "What if..." statements, but not for actually making fact based claims on the legitimacy of the graffiti.

[Irna]

Thank you very much Martin Stower and cormac mac airt. I think it's conclusive: either Sitchin lied about what he saw in the Hill facsimiles, or he never saw them and lied about his visit to the British Museum

DieChecker: Yes, Brewer existed; you can find online numerous mentions of him in history pages about Fallbrook and its coal mines. What has never been proven is:

- that he worked in Egypt with Howard Vyse

- that he ever wrote letters about a dispute with HV and Hill.

All we are told about these particular points comes from some notes written by his great-grandson Allen, who never saw himself these supposed letters, and seems to have entertained quite an exaggerated idea of his ancestor's role and achievements while in Europe, see here.

[kmt_sesh]

...Sitchen, from what I can tell, is the only writer/Egyptologist who ever saw these letters. There is motive to fake the letters right there... Sitchen faked lots of stuff, or glaringly misrepresented evidence to favor his ideas.

...

LOL Shame, shame! Please, never refer to Zecharia Sitchin as an Egyptologist. Sitchin was never a professional historian or an academic of any caliber.

Correct terms would be writer, pyramidiot, alternative writer, or fringe writer. Or charlatan.

[kmt_sesh]

This is what Hill’s drawings look like:

Copyright in this image remains with the British Museum; I wish they would photograph the rest of the material.

The ones in Operations (reduced-scale versions of the lithographs based on Perring’s drawings) look like this:

Note that Sitchin to a near certainty flat-out lied about both.

Creighton has elsewhere vehemently denied his dependency on Sitchin. Doubtless he will detail the steps he has taken to verify the claims he is making about Walter M. Allen and Humphries Brewer. Clearly he must have taken some, as otherwise he would be entirely dependent on Sitchin for this material.

“I’ve seen Stower in the past claim what is clearly a single centre dot as being three individual lines all joined up with no spaces between the lines.”

Doubtless Creighton will be able to specify (with appropriate links) where I claimed this. Given his claims about other people lacking integrity, I really think he should do this.

We may note that Creighton has elsewhere shown remarkable levels of naïveté about digital images, exemplified here:

http://www.grahamhan...276808&t=276479

Also that his attitude to relevant questions of ancient Egyptian palaeography is as here:

http://www.grahamhan...277261&t=276479

M.

Mr. Stower, thank you for entering the debate and contributing such useful material. You have helped to resolve much of this unnecessary fuss.

It just goes to show the damage Zecharia Sitchin has caused, even though he's been dead for several years now: the same nonsense continues to be perpetuated.

[jules99]

I think this is a photo of the original from the GP, its from a non trustworthy website...but the pic looks OK so Im surmising that its real, Its interesting that J R Hill copies each brushstroke and displays the same economy of line in his facsimile as does the original. He is copying technique as well as subject matter....entirely different from Perrins rendition. Thats probably not a hard thing for a trained artist to do, though..but this does make me wonder why would the skills of this artist be required...Perrins renditions were adequate..IDK, just speculation

Edited April 22, 2013 by jules99

[+DieChecker]

LOL Shame, shame! Please, never refer to Zecharia Sitchin as an Egyptologist. Sitchin was never a professional historian or an academic of any caliber.

Correct terms would be writer, pyramidiot, alternative writer, or fringe writer. Or charlatan.

I only meant to lump everyone else who might be interested into the catagory of "Have never seen the letters". But apparently, even Sitchen did not see the letters, if what Irna said is right. Because, the great grandson was quoting them from memory.

And we all know how good the average memory is.

Edited April 23, 2013 by DieChecker

[Irna]

Because, the great grandson was quoting them from memory.

Not even that

Allen noted down in october 54 a few things after a conversation with his mother (aged 78), who had visited in August 54 another relative who had seen the letters

The transcription of Allen's notes is there, see the update of 30 March.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Mr. Stower, thank you for entering the debate and contributing such useful material. You have helped to resolve much of this unnecessary fuss.

It just goes to show the damage Zecharia Sitchin has caused, even though he's been dead for several years now: the same nonsense continues to be perpetuated.

You are jumping a little to soon to the conclusion, whether it was Ra-U-Fu or Kh-u-fu that was forged by Vyse, it is still a mystery who built the great pyramids.

a person who is able to manipulate electrol roles can easily manipulate true copies.

If Khufu had actually built the great pyramids,he would have put more of these glyphs in there.Also now i am convinced that Khufu didn't usurp the great pyramids and then put his cartouche on them, as again he would have put more material out there if he had done so.

Vyse must have definitely done the forgery with the assistance of others.

Like i said the real clue lies in the glyphs in the inacessible areas (if there are any as Graham has seen the insides and he says that he only found quarry marks),the argument of glyphs in inacessible areas has been used against Sitchin many times, but in all probabilites there are no glyphs in those inaccessible areas.

The clue to who really built the pyramids would lie in those glyphs(if they exist), until then khufu cartouche's in plain site could easily have been forged as correctly pointed out by Sitchin.

[SHaYap]

I think this is a photo of the original from the GP, its from a non trustworthy website...but the pic looks OK so Im surmising that its real, Its interesting that J R Hill copies each brushstroke and displays the same economy of line in his facsimile as does the original. He is copying technique as well as subject matter....entirely different from Perrins rendition. Thats probably not a hard thing for a trained artist to do, though..but this does make me wonder why would the skills of this artist be required...Perrins renditions were adequate..IDK, just speculation

What is the writing/painting/scribing material/utensils used here ?

The ends looks like 'brush' tips strokes .... to me ... Eastern Calligraphic stylistic strokes ...

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

What is the writing/painting/scribing material/utensils used here ?

The ends looks like 'brush' tips strokes .... to me ... Eastern Calligraphic stylistic strokes ...

Looks remarkably so, though as it is not an "official" glyph on a temple etc, I guess the writer has let their inner self be expressed without fear of censure. Also looks like an opportunity for a new "theory". So, the Japanese built the Great Pyramid as a stasis chamber for Godzilla who will emerge at the "End Times" and destroy us all. Debate?

[SHaYap]

Looks remarkably so, though as it is not an "official" glyph on a temple etc, I guess the writer has let their inner self be expressed without fear of censure. Also looks like an opportunity for a new "theory". So, the Japanese built the Great Pyramid as a stasis chamber for Godzilla who will emerge at the "End Times" and destroy us all. Debate?

Judging this by the Eastern Calligraphy Ink Brush standards, that's exceptional skill shown in controlling of the strokes, you can tell where he started and where he ended.

Even if it was by quilt and nib its hard enough to do on paper... that's very well done especially on rock ...

Can you make out the sequence of strokes on the 'bird' character ?

Now go and apply the sequence to Hill's copy ...

Edited April 23, 2013 by third_eye

[jules99]

Hi third_eye;

I think reed pens or brushes (reed with the end chewed?) with ochre or iron oxide.

Im having a problem dealing with the coverage of the paint strokes over rough worked stone, which Im guessing would be more absorbent and definitely have a greater surface area. Would a reed brush hold enough paint to achieve this in the quick casual way the glyph appears to be executed... IDK..

Edited April 23, 2013 by jules99

[SHaYap]

Hi third_eye;

I think reed pens or brushes (reed with the end chewed?) with ochre or iron oxide.

Im having a problem dealing with the coverage of the paint strokes over rough worked stone, which Im guessing would be more absorbent and definitely have a greater surface area. Would a reed brush hold enough paint to achieve this in the quick casual way the glyph appears to be executed... IDK..

From experience ... I don't believe reed ends chewed or not can achieve those strokes. Can't get my hands on the kind of reeds used there or then but I have experimented on the reed like plants available here. Ink/paints are a problem too. I don't believe the water soluble pigments then are permanent enough and applicable by means of reed instruments.

I believe the AEs had brushes though, not that any has been found mind you, not that I know of ... though I must confess I haven't looked it up in a long time.

At those times it is believed that China already were already using brushes ....

http://books.google.com.my/books?id=bt7q8hfiZ4gC&redir_esc=y

http://books.google.com.my/books?id=bt7q8hfiZ4gC&pg=PA161&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

I don't believe any brushes would survive as it is used till its no longer a brush then its nothing but a toss away ...

Never used ochre or iron oxide before ... so I can't say I know anything for sure here.

[jules99]

From experience ... I don't believe reed ends chewed or not can achieve those strokes. Can't get my hands on the kind of reeds used there or then but I have experimented on the reed like plants available here. Ink/paints are a problem too. I don't believe the water soluble pigments then are permanent enough and applicable by means of reed instruments.

I believe the AEs had brushes though, not that any has been found mind you, not that I know of ... though I must confess I haven't looked it up in a long time.

At those times it is believed that China already were already using brushes ....

http://books.google....4gC&redir_esc=y

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

I don't believe any brushes would survive as it is used till its no longer a brush then its nothing but a toss away ...

Never used ochre or iron oxide before ... so I can't say I know anything for sure here.

Thanks;

You bought me back down to earth a bit I remember kmt_sesh mentioning the use of oil which would help flow and coverage of the paint...Im also unsure about the availability of paint brushes in ancient egypt, maybe they had them because it certainly looks like one might have been used in this instance.

[Merc14]

You are jumping a little to soon to the conclusion, whether it was Ra-U-Fu or Kh-u-fu that was forged by Vyse, it is still a mystery who built the great pyramids.

a person who is able to manipulate electrol roles can easily manipulate true copies.

If Khufu had actually built the great pyramids,he would have put more of these glyphs in there.Also now i am convinced that Khufu didn't usurp the great pyramids and then put his cartouche on them, as again he would have put more material out there if he had done so.

Vyse must have definitely done the forgery with the assistance of others.

Like i said the real clue lies in the glyphs in the inacessible areas (if there are any as Graham has seen the insides and he says that he only found quarry marks),the argument of glyphs in inacessible areas has been used against Sitchin many times, but in all probabilites there are no glyphs in those inaccessible areas.

The clue to who really built the pyramids would lie in those glyphs(if they exist), until then khufu cartouche's in plain site could easily have been forged as correctly pointed out by Sitchin.

The initial accusation, and that is all it was, is that he allegedly paid off voters to get his seat. The reasoning behind this is that the seat was always won by someone else easily. This wasn't proven, and there are many reasons fro voters to turn against an incumbent. Regardless, possible chicanery in mid-nineteenth century English politics has nothing to do with falsifying glyphs in a newly discovered chamber in the GP.

Using your burden of proof a person could say "I think I saw Mr.X put something in his pocket while shopping and therefore accuse him of murdering Mr. Y because a shoplifter is certainly capable of murdering someone."

The rest of your post shows us all that ou haven't read very much of this thread or have simply shut your mind to any argument against what you want to believe and will simply keep repeating the same disproved theory until no one bothers to respond any longer, at which point you will declare yourself in the right.

[cormac mac airt]

Just got a response from the British Museum this AM and here is Dr. Usick's response:

Dear Mr ********,

Because the originals are very rough graffiti, I hesitate to describe the facsimile drawings of the cartouches to you and would suggest that you really need to look at the images yourself.

I spoke to our curator Marcel Maree and he suggested that I send you scans of our photographs of the facsimiles which show the cartouches, which I have attached. Please note however that the images are to be used for your research only, and should you wish to publish them in any form, you would need to seek our permission.

I hope this is of help,

Yours,

Dr Patricia Usick, Honorary Archivist,

Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, the British Museum

While I do feel I would be remiss in upholding my end of this agreement were I to violate same I can, however, say that in all four instances it is quite definitively a sieve that is used in the Khufu Cartouches and not a solar disc nor a circle with dot. And in support of mstower, what he posted earlier is an exact copy of one of the four scans. This ends the debate and shows that any attempt to claim Khufu's name wasn't written with a sieve is quite simple WRONG. To me, this ends the debate.

cormac

[mstower]

In response to Creighton:

“Welcome to UM - nice to see you here (if a little late).”

I post where I choose and when I choose. I was unaware of there being a schedule or rota. Perhaps you could specify its URL?

“Do you know who were the witnesses to this particular drawing of Hill?”

Consider the timing. This drawing was made after the signing of the attestation on May 19.

“Not quite conclusive though.”

I apportion my claims to the evidence. I recommend the practice to you.

Sitchin may have been genuinely deluded. I allow for that possibility.

“Not that Sitchen [sic] actually interests me”

Only to the extent that you reproduce his methods, assumptions and materials.

My challenge: “Creighton has elsewhere vehemently denied his dependency on Sitchin. Doubtless he will detail the steps he has taken to verify the claims he is making about Walter M. Allen and Humphries Brewer. Clearly he must have taken some, as otherwise he would be entirely dependent on Sitchin for this material.”

Creighton’s response: “That Sitchin was first to present such questions in no way implies that I necessarily share his interpretations of it. And you can rest assured that I am making my own investigations into the allegations. Do not fret so.”

Scarcely needs comment. The challenge has been dodged or misunderstood.

Again: What steps have you (Creighton) taken to verify Sitchin’s claims about Walter M. Allen and Humphries Brewer? Or are we to make the natural inference, that you are entirely reliant on Sitchin for this material?

Sorry, Creighton, but I do not rest assured on your mere say-so.

What Creighton alleged: “I’ve seen Stower in the past claim what is clearly a single centre dot as being three individual lines all joined up with no spaces between the lines.”

What I actually wrote (here): “Looks to me like the artist intended a stroke rather than a dot—or even two strokes, partly overlapping.”

With respect to the cartouche at c in this image (large):

http://edoc3.bibliot...ge/02030010.jpg

Clearly a single centre dot? I don’t think so. And two strokes, not three. Creighton got it wrong. Careless.

It still looks to me like the artist intended two strokes, but I’m inclined in any case to discount the Lepsius illustration as evidence. I suspect that it’s based on Hill and Perring and not on any original drawing made by the Lepsius expedition. There is no such drawing in the Lepsius archive. (Thanks to Markus Pössel for this information, as also for the scan of the Hill facsimile.)

On digital images: Creighton relied on fine detail in a digital image (my scan originally) which had been reduced in size. The reduction had distorted the detail, which made nonsense of the claims he was making on the strength of it. Creighton needed this pointing out to him—which didn’t stop him later displaying similar naïveté about enlarged images.

“And yet I can tell the difference between a hatched disk and a plain disc. And I can tell when there is no obvious context available, as in the Abydos table of Kings.”

The obvious context for the king list is the remainder of the relief and the temple in which it occurs—and it that context (as you know, my having explained it to you more than once), Aa1 appears as a plain disc—including, I believe, a couple of examples, in the same lexical context, in the formulae accompanying the king list, one visible here:

http://ancienegypte....sethi (651).JPG

“Can you explain to the Board here, in your opinion, what colour a blank circle “KH” would normally be painted? Pink, purple, blue, red, yellow, green, black? Much appreciated.”

The board gets a capital?

There is no general answer to your question. It depends on the period and the context. Old Kingdom practice differs from what we see in the reign of Seti.

The way to do this is to pay close attention to the local palaeography.

Examples of what we see in the temple of Seti, the context of the king list:

This should answer your question (insofar as it concerns the Seti temple).

M.

Edited April 23, 2013 by mstower

[Scott Creighton]

I have received scanned images of the Hill facsimiles form the British Museum (with much thanks to Dr Patricia Usick). Alas, these are for private use although I am now seeking permission from the BM to publish them here and will do so if/when such permissions are granted.

What I can tell you is that the Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber presents the three individual hashed lines within the circle and is, therefore, distinctly the ‘Kh’ glyph. Others present just two fairly small strokes, one above the other which again represent ‘Kh’. The only cartouche that seems ambiguous is the cartouche of ‘Khnum-Khuf’ from Lady Arbuthnot’s chamber which appears just like a large centre blob within the circle. This could be described as Ra although it may simply be that when the artist painted the three strokes of the individual lines, the still wet paint bled into the other lines giving the impression of a large centre dot and, as such, even this is not definitively ‘Ra’ (although it could be mistaken as such).

So, where does this leave us? I think the evidence from Hill’s drawings (which I have now seen) completely scotches Sitchin’s claim from “Journeys”, to wit:

In no instance was the “Kh” inscribed correctly as a sieve with diagonal lines; instead there was a dot or a smudge inside a circle, spelling “Ra” ”

If we look at Sitchin’s statement more closely we can see where he has gone wrong. In the first part of the sentence he states: “In no instance was the “Kh” inscribed correctly as a sieve with diagonal lines”. This is true as there are no diagonal lines in the discs in any of the drawings. Why Sitchin was expecting such remains a mystery because the lines, as many here already know, can be diagonal, horizontal or even vertical. So, Sitchin was correct in that particular statement even though he was wrong in his understanding of the sieve lines.

The second part of Sitchin’s statement “instead there was a dot or a smudge inside a circle, spelling “Ra” I think is also ambiguous. If he is referring to the centre ‘blob’ that can be observed in the ‘Khnum-Khuf’ cartouche then he could have easily been convinced by that, imo. But the structure of Sitchin’s sentence is written very cleverly as it gives the impression that ALL cartouches presented such a disk—and they simply do not. Sitchin should have made this much clearer and can, I suppose, be charged with being economical with the facts. Does that mean that he himself faked the Raufu name himself for his book?

Well the inscription he presents of ‘Raufu’ (which he label’s Hill’s Inscription) does not exist. It seems to have been a composite of what looks like a centre dot from the ‘Khnum-Khuf’ inscription in Lady Arbuthnot’s along with the standard quail, viper, quail from the inscription in Campbell’s. So yes, Sitchin made that up as it is not an inscription that Hill made himself as Sitchin’s label of ‘Hill’s inscription’ implies.

So, where does that leave us? I can certainly see how Sitchin, were he alive today, might defend his ‘composite image’. But it simply does not wash. He should have presented the facts and only the facts instead of presenting his own composite image and then attributing that image to Hill. That was wrong, pure and simple and I wonder where his moral compass was in all of this. Was it fraudulent? I would have to say yes because if he wanted to be taken as a serious and reliable researcher then he should present the facts and only the facts instead of trying to find a way to make the facts fit his own theory which I think his composite image proves is exactly what he was trying to do.

As such, we can dismiss Sitchin (as an unreliable witness) from the discussion and return to the original debate. Did Howard-Vyse and his cohorts perpetrate a fraud? Well, the additional piece of information that we now have from Hill’s enlarged drawings from the BM, as some here have already pointed out, is that the brush strokes of Hill’s appear remarkably similar to the brush strokes of the original inscriptions. I understand, of course, that Hill was meant to copy them true but they are almost ‘too true’ to be real. If we consider Perring’s drawings and Howard-Vyse’s drawings, they are not nearly as accurate a representation as that found in Mr Hill’s. Just an observation and not proof of anything although I wonder what a graphtologist might make of it?

So, the situation stands that Howard-Vyse remains a man of dubious moral character. He bought 932 votes out of 1010.

Staple's consequent petition for bribery was unsuccessful, although Vyse is known to have paid all but 78 of those who voted for him at the rate of £3 8s. for a plumper and £1 14s. for a split vote. (From here)

.

The man bought his way to power. That was illegal and however anyone may wish to dress it up, it was STILL illegal. 932 crimes. Even Mr Stower who popped into this discussion yesterday, implies such:

Not that this lets him [Howard-Vyse] off the hook: it looks like the petition [of Mr Staples] should have succeeded. – M. Stower (From here)

.

The man was a fraud with no moral compass who wilfully engaged in an illegal act—the purchase of 932 votes in order to get what he wanted. He should, like Eric von Daniken, have gone to jail for the fraud he perpetrated in the Beverley election. Unlike Daniken, however, Howard-Vyse had friends in high places, including the Duke of Cumberland. And also like von Daniken, when you have no moral compass and engage in illegal acts, you automatically forfeit your trustworthiness. In legal parlance you become an ‘unreliable witness’. Howard-Vyse, in this regard, should be considered no less reliable than von Daniken and as such, his books placed alongside von Daniken’s (and Sitchin's). If the rule is that people’s works are to be dismissed as a result of them having broken the law or having shown that they possess no moral compass then the rule should be applied to all and not be applied selectively. To apply it selectively is simply hypocrisy of the highest order.

SC

Edited April 23, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Judging this by the Eastern Calligraphy Ink Brush standards, that's exceptional skill shown in controlling of the strokes, you can tell where he started and where he ended.

Even if it was by quilt and nib its hard enough to do on paper... that's very well done especially on rock ...

Can you make out the sequence of strokes on the 'bird' character ?

Now go and apply the sequence to Hill's copy ...

Hill has clearly copied what he saw, and very well. Perring seems to have drawn what he thinks it should look like, almost as if he had just been told what the individual glyphs were, and drew them in the "correct" manner. I would like to know what size is the original?

This glyph is beautiful, I think whoever created it was talented and I wonder what they could have created for a monument open to all to see, if they were not constrained by the rather rigid AE styles. And for how it was cerated, then certainly with a brush, I have no doubt. If they did not have brushes of various sizes, then they would still be painting temples, palaces and houses to this day...

[mstower]

I think this is a photo of the original from the GP, its from a non trustworthy website...but the pic looks OK so Im surmising that its real, Its interesting that J R Hill copies each brushstroke and displays the same economy of line in his facsimile as does the original. He is copying technique as well as subject matter....entirely different from Perrins rendition. Thats probably not a hard thing for a trained artist to do, though..but this does make me wonder why would the skills of this artist be required...Perrins renditions were adequate..IDK, just speculation

The image is an enlargement of my scan of the relevant image in Rainer Stadelmann, Die ägyptischen Pyramiden.

Richards used it without permission.

Perring was working on a much-reduced scale in the context of sectional drawings of the chambers. Hill was working 1:1. He made a pencil outline and then filled it with paint.

M.

Edited April 23, 2013 by mstower

[cormac mac airt]

~SNIP~

The man was a fraud with no moral compass who wilfully engaged in an illegal act—the purchase of 932 votes in order to get what he wanted. He should, like Eric von Daniken, have gone to jail for the fraud he perpetrated in the Beverley election. Unlike Daniken, however, Howard-Vyse had friends in high places, including the Duke of Cumberland. And also like von Daniken, when you have no moral compass and engage in illegal acts, you automatically forfeit your trustworthiness. In legal parlance you become an ‘unreliable witness’. Howard-Vyse, in this regard, should be considered no less reliable than von Daniken and as such, his books placed alongside von Daniken’s. If the rule is that people’s works are to be dismissed as a result of them having broken the law or having shown that they possess no moral compass then the rule should be applied to all and not be applied selectively. To apply it selectively is simply hypocrisy of the highest order.

SC

That's one of the differences between you and I. I don't subscribe to the "one size fits all" mentality. As opposed to Vyse, whose political ambitions have no relevance to the field of Egyptology, Von Daniken fully admitted in one instance that he fabricated evidence because readers of his would only believe what they saw. This is nowhere apparent in Vyse's efforts in Egypt. Was Vyse perfect, of course not as is evidenced by his use of dynomite in acquiring an entrance into the relieving chambers. But then again neither is Scott Creighton. Sitchin is another example since it's quite obvious he fabricated and promoted what he wanted others to believe, regardless of the reality of the situation.

The bottom line this question of "Did Howard-Vyse and his cohorts perpetrate a fraud?" is that there is no evidence that such a fraud happened. And since one can't, or at least shouldn't, base an argument on evidence they don't have this effectively puts "Paid" on the question IMO.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

The bottom line this question of "Did Howard-Vyse and his cohorts perpetrate a fraud?" is that there is no evidence that such a fraud happened.

SC: But because of what we now know of Howard-Vyse's lack of moral compass, the charge will always be levelled against him that once a fraud always a fraud. The leopard does not change its spots. Consensus Egyptology must PROVE by scientific means if possible (and I have suggested some ways that this might be done) that the inscriptions are genuine. In my view Howard-Vyse's dubious character casts too much of a dark shadow and make his claimed discovery as dubious as himself. We need empirical, scientific evidence to settle the matter--not the word of a man of dubious character. What has science got to say on the matter?

SC

[jules99]

The image is an enlargement of my scan of the relevant image in Rainer Stadelmann, Die ägyptischen Pyramiden.

Richards used it without permission.

Perring was working on a much-reduced scale in the context of sectional drawings of the chambers. Hill was working 1:1. He made a pencil outline and then filled it with paint.

M.

Hi;

Err No, he might have marked out the page to keep to exact proportions but his brush strokes betray his ability. Im a little jaded to argue too forcefully over an online photo...Maybe a high resolution image would tell a different story. Hills image to me has the look of a calligrapher..

[mstower]

Creighton again:

“If we look at Sitchin’s statement more closely we can see where he has gone wrong.”

Telling a pack of lies?

“So, the situation stands that Howard-Vyse remains a man of dubious moral character. He bought 932 votes out of 1010.”

How much you really care about this: 0 units of concern. In truth you are merely using this as a springboard for an illegitimate inference about his actions at the pyramids.

“The man was a fraud with no moral compass . . .”

A conclusion grossly disproportionate to the evidence: a poor comment on your moral and intellectual compass.

As elsewhere, Creighton: where is the evidence of his abusing his office, once elected?

Where is the evidence of a trail of corruption and scandal from 1807 to 1837? There surely should be one, if Vyse was anything like the caricature you’ve drawn of him.

Looking more closely, we find that Vyse (the father) and Vyse (the son) were pulled into a political game not of their making by their royal patron, the Duke of Cumberland. This at a time when Britain was at war with Napoleon.

What Vyse did under these extraordinary circumstances is a very poor guide to what he would do left to himself, when nothing concerning King and Country was at stake. Non sequitur.

M.

[mstower]

Hi;

Err No, he might have marked out the page to keep to exact proportions but his brush strokes betray his ability. Im a little jaded to argue too forcefully over an online photo...Maybe a high resolution image would tell a different story. Hills image to me has the look of a calligrapher..

Sorry, but, I examined the actual facsimile sheets, not just images.

Pencil outline, paint fill.

M.