GP Hoax - New Evidence of Vyse Forgery

[Hanslune]

Hanslune,

I'll keep it simple for you.

SC

Yeah come back when you have all the info is that to much to ask?

Edited August 7, 2014 by Hanslune

[Scott Creighton]

Yeah come back when you have all the info is that to much to ask?

All the infor you need is right there in the OP (and subsequent post). Let me ONCE AGAIN make it simple for you:

Why did Vyse draw in his journal the cartocuhe of Khufu he claims is from Campbell's Chamber with none of the hatched lines when he "minutely examined" the chamber and when he draws in the smaller detail (actually a mistake) of the two small dots under the snake glyph?

Care to answer that very simple question?

SC

[questionmark]

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

Right, and we took that apart to the point of humiliation...because we have not seen you around for a while after that... and then you came back with v1.0 of the relieve chamber gratifies, and now we have v2.0 (reloaded) and besides harping on the horrible character of Vyse not having any new evidence.

Come on, a few weeks ago I posted that it might be fun having you around here...but it is getting disappointing...

[Bennu]

Probably for the same reason that he left the lines out when he drew the cartouche from the Tomb of Trades. He just didn't feel like bothering.

[Hanslune]

Let me ONCE AGAIN make it simple for you:

SC

Let me ONCE AGAIN make it simple for you:

When you have all the info come back or are you going to force me to debate you without all the info by crushing me with your enormous pulsating, sweaty ever expanding EGO?

AAAAAARRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH

Taking bets and opinions on whether the fine folks here thinks Scott EGO can force me to debate?

lol

[Hanslune]

Right, and we took that apart to the point of humiliation...because we have not seen you around for a while after that... and then you came back with v1.0 of the relieve chamber gratifies, and now we have v2.0 (reloaded) and besides harping on the horrible character of Vyse not having any new evidence.

Come on, a few weeks ago I posted that it might be fun having you around here...but it is getting disappointing...

Hey look at the good side - he's NOT saying ramps are debunked, over and over and over again like his fringe sidekick.

[Bennu]

Scott has conveniently ignored every point I made. I guess that means they're all valid. Again, one simple question cannot be answered; why did Vyse also not draw lines in the cartouche from the tomb?

[Hanslune]

Scott has conveniently ignored every point I made. I guess that means they're all valid. Again, one simple question cannot be answered; why did Vyse also not draw lines in the cartouche from the tomb?

He's already gone thru all this on other websites he's just putting down his head and posting his information. Then he'll go away and come back when he wants to flog his book......

[questionmark]

He's already gone thru all this on other websites he's just putting down his head and posting his information. Then he'll go away and come back when he wants to flog his book......

It desperately needs some plugging: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,468,404 in Books....

[Perceptivum]

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?

Because he was an alien archaeologist.

[Hanslune]

Right, and we took that apart to the point of humiliation...because we have not seen you around for a while after that... and then you came back with v1.0 of the relieve chamber gratifies, and now we have v2.0 (reloaded) and besides harping on the horrible character of Vyse not having any new evidence.

Questionmark

May I bother you a link or name of that amusing sounding thread?

I've been hired by the "Drunken Red Gang of Ptah" of Egyptology to gather info on Scot, in particular his participation in threads. As I understand it they are going to either offer him a lucrative position or a monetary bribe. So far they've come up with 1 pound and 52 pence in exchange for his not overthrowing Egyptology.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Hanslune

[questionmark]

Questionmark

May I bother you a link or name of that amusing sounding thread?

I've been hired by the "Drunken Red Gang of Ptah" of Egyptology to gather info on Scot, in particular his participation in threads. As I understand it they are going to either offer him a lucrative position or a monetary bribe. So far they've come up with 1 pound and 52 pence in exchange for his not overthrowing Egyptology.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=258580entry4997892

But the best is to run a search for Scott Creighton.... there is a lot of fun in it (though I have to admit that occasionally we really had to strain our brains much to the contrary of the items of the farting Osiris protractor).

[Bennu]

I know that Scott is stuck on this idea that the pyramids are way older than believed and that the cartouches are a major problem for his theories. I think he really should admit that the case for forgery is simply not supportable though. His latest thing about the lines being missing from the Vyse drawings is just not going to fly, for all the reasons I stated in my earlier posts which he chose not to reply to. I do have some sympathy for the guy. He put a lot of work into his theories and wrote a book and everything. I just think he should have held off on the book until he had some more solid grounds for his theories than he currently has. There is a whole lot more pointing to Khufu being the builder than some ancient lost civilization.

[Ichihara]

I lost you when you start about contradiction.

[Hanslune]

I know that Scott is stuck on this idea that the pyramids are way older than believed and that the cartouches are a major problem for his theories. I think he really should admit that the case for forgery is simply not supportable though. His latest thing about the lines being missing from the Vyse drawings is just not going to fly, for all the reasons I stated in my earlier posts which he chose not to reply to. I do have some sympathy for the guy. He put a lot of work into his theories and wrote a book and everything. I just think he should have held off on the book until he had some more solid grounds for his theories than he currently has. There is a whole lot more pointing to Khufu being the builder than some ancient lost civilization.

Yes he must somehow get rid of the names as they completely destroy his contention.

I have a simpler solution Scott, here are five better scenarios than you have now to explain away the names:

1. The Vyse didn't use black powder to blow his way into the relieving chambers. Their was already a secret passage theire that he widen, then the AE could have penetrated them and put the markings during their time.

2. The Atlanteans who built the pyramids 20,000 years ago had time travel and went forward into time and stole a bunch of Egyptians to do the labor, and it was they who put the graffiti there, IV dynasty Egyptians back 20,000 years

3. That the relieving chambers simply don't exist - I mean I've been in the great pyramid three times and I never seen them...chuckle

4. That a time warp sent part of a IV dynasty building back into time and inside a 20,000 year old Atlantean structure.

5. That our universe is a simulation and you have discovered an opps by the programer.

There chose any of those -they are more believable that what you have now.

No need to thank me, lol

Edited August 8, 2014 by Hanslune

[Bennu]

I was actually hoping for some lively debate with Scott. This is pretty disappointing. He won't even engage in discussion with me for some reason. Just pretend I'm Robert Bauval, Scott.

[badeskov]

I was actually hoping for some lively debate with Scott. This is pretty disappointing. He won't even engage in discussion with me for some reason. Just pretend I'm Robert Bauval, Scott.

SC can't engage in a discussion, I would have figured that much was embarrassingly obvious by now. He doesn't have the intellectual integrity to actually hold any reasonable debate about this.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Hanslune]

I was actually hoping for some lively debate with Scott. This is pretty disappointing. He won't even engage in discussion with me for some reason. Just pretend I'm Robert Bauval, Scott.

He gotten shredded so many times recently he's getting very defensive. He really does have a massive ego and it bruises easily.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Hanslune

[cormac mac airt]

"I think for those readers who may not be aware of a particular claim made by Creighton that doesn't appear to be correct, in this case taken from ATS and claimed at least twice, contrary to what Vyse had to say in his journal "Operations carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837 - Volume 1", the following:

SC: His notes reflect nothing of the sort. His notes tell us quite clearly that he saw a cartouche in Campbell's Chamber with a plain disc as this is what he drew in his journal and which he writes alongside this very cartouche the words: "in Campbell's Chamber". But I agree with you on one thing - Vyse probably thought the spelling should be with the blank disc and that is why he initially painted it into the chamber with such a disc only to realize 3 weeks later (after seeing Perring's drawings) that the disc required the hatched lines. (No one, least of all Vyse, knew in 1837 that the plain disc spelling was just as valid as the hatched disc spelling).

The first is not as "clear" as Creighton wants others to believe and as to the latter Vyse has this to say under his May 27th entry in the journal "Operations ...Vol 1", Page 280:

The other name discovered with it, which he had

already observed in an adjacent tomb, and conjectured to

be that of Cheops, demonstrates at the same time the

value of the phonetic system, and the ingenuity of the

learned Italian. It is composed of elements purely phonetic,

and is decidedly a name. It has also been published

by Mr. Wilkinson, mater. Hieroglyph, unplaced King's;

and M. Rosellini, torn. i. tav. 1, 2, and reads Shoufou

(Suphis) or Khoufou (Cheops), according to the aspiration

given to the initial -- a sieve

(inserted picture of circle with three hash marks here),

which appears in Mr. Wilkinson's work without any distinction from the

solar disc. The merit of assigning it to Cheops belongs

to M. Rosellini.

Which suggests that Vyse and Wilkinson were both aware in 1837 of the usage of either the plain disc or the disc with hash marks, contrary to what Creighton stated.

cormac

Edited August 8, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[Windowpane]

... Vyse has this to say under his May 27th entry in the journal "Operations ...Vol 1", Page 280:

The other name discovered with it, which he had

already observed in an adjacent tomb, and conjectured to

be that of Cheops, demonstrates at the same time the

value of the phonetic system, and the ingenuity of the

learned Italian. It is composed of elements purely phonetic,

and is decidedly a name. It has also been published

by Mr. Wilkinson, mater. Hieroglyph, unplaced King's;

and M. Rosellini, torn. i. tav. 1, 2, and reads Shoufou

(Suphis) or Khoufou (Cheops), according to the aspiration

given to the initial -- a sieve (inserted picture of circle with three hash marks here),

which appears in Mr. Wilkinson's work without any distinction from the

solar disc. The merit of assigning it to Cheops belongs

to M. Rosellini.

Which suggests that Vyse and Wilkinson were both aware in 1837 of the usage of either the plain disc or the disc with hash marks, contrary to what Creighton stated.

Although that extract appears in Operations 1, it's by Birch, and not Vyse himself.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

A thought occurs about the difference in the Cartouchs ... the man was illustrating by torchlight, as in "fire on a stick" torchlight.

Presumably it's easy to miss finer details when your lightsouce is prone toflicker everytime someone farts.

[cormac mac airt]

Although that extract appears in Operations 1, it's by Birch, and not Vyse himself.

However the portion preceding Birch's quotes were not the words of Birch and runs contrary to the lie that "No one, least of all Vyse, knew in 1837 that the plain disc spelling was just as valid as the hatched disc spelling".

cormac

[Windowpane]

However the portion preceding Birch's quotes were not the words of Birch and runs contrary to the lie that "No one, least of all Vyse, knew in 1837 that the plain disc spelling was just as valid as the hatched disc spelling".

Sorry, but I don't understand.

Vyse's last words appear at the top of pg. 279, and merely introduce Birch's discussion, which then carries on uninterrupted until near the end of pg. 284.

Vyse was relatively new to the field of hieroglyphs. Wisely, he left all the commentary to the expert.

[Bennu]

Here's the silliest part. Scott actually states that Vyse notes that the tomb cartouche has lines in the circle and yet he made his illustration without the lines. That proves conclusively that Vyse leaving the lines out of his illustrations does not mean that he didn't see lines in the actual cartouche. And then Vyse also shows the pyramid cartouche WITH the lines in the circle on the same page. Scott's only possible defense is that Vyse drew the lines into the pyramid cartouche later, but didn't bother to draw them into the OTHER illustration of the same pyramid cartouche on the same page, and that he also somehow erased the lines from the circle in the tomb cartouche illustration. It's just ridiculous. What would the point be of correcting one illustration but not correcting the other ones on the same page?

Scott's assertion that Vyse drew the lines in later is completely arbitrary. In other words, he just made it up. Sadly, correcting one but not correcting the other two on the same page is simply inexplicable in any logical way. He also calls the smaller illustration of the pyramid cartouche the "master" version. What exactly makes him think that's a master version? Why would the smaller one be the master one? The larger one is clearly the master version, if such a thing existed, How did Scott ever think that his version of events would actually hold up to scrutiny? Any court would throw that case out before it even got to trial.

I notice that on the GHMB Scott goes on and on for hundreds of posts arguing his viewpoint but here only replied to a few posts. Apparently we were able to take the wind out of his sails a whole lot faster than anyone on that other forum, including Robert Bauval.

Image from Scott Creighton's pdf linked in his first post;

Edited August 8, 2014 by Bennu

[cormac mac airt]

Sorry, but I don't understand.

Vyse's last words appear at the top of pg. 279, and merely introduce Birch's discussion, which then carries on uninterrupted until near the end of pg. 284.

Vyse was relatively new to the field of hieroglyphs. Wisely, he left all the commentary to the expert.

The quotes show that Vyse was aware, prior to the time his journal was published, that Wilkinson already had in his own text the sieve and the solar symbol with no evidence that they had separate meanings. Vyse also says, in Volume 2 under the June 17th entry "I copied the cartouches in the tomb of trades" and shows that the cartouche of Khufu's name contains a solar disc and not a sieve. That cartouche DID NOT come from the Great Pyramid.

Edit to add that the Tomb of Trades is also known as the Tomb of Iymery, designated G6020 and located in the western cemetery.

cormac

Edited August 8, 2014 by cormac mac airt