GP Hoax - Part 2 (Hill's Complicity)

[Scott Creighton]

This thread will present further evidence of fraud having been perpetrated in the Great Pyramid in 1837 by Colonel Howard Vyse and his team. This further evidence is related to the earlier thread The GP Hoax - New Evidence of Vyse Forgery.

As he opened each of the 'Relieving Chambers' above the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, Colonel Vyse allegedly found hieroglyphic markings in these chambers, some bearing the names of Khunum-Khuf and Khufu in cartouches. There were many other glyphs and simple mason's markings in these chambers. Some markings went between gaps in the unmovable granite blocks but as far as Graham Hancock could tell (he saw these marks with his own eyes) these are not registers of hieroglyphs and certainly not any cartouches--just random mason's marks.

Colonel Vyse commissioned his assistant, J.R. Hill, to make 1:1 facsimile drawings of the hieroglyphs (including the various cartouches) in all of these chambers--28 drawings in all. It is important to understand here that many of the hieroglyphs in these chambers are upside down (180 degrees), some rotated 90 degrees or, indeed, the correct way up relative to our standing position.

I viewed all 28 of Hill's facsimile drawings recently at the British Museum. Their analysis reveals a very compelling piece of circumstantial evidence that implicates J.R. Hill in the forgery conspiracy.

When we pick up any one of Hill's drawings the first thing that strikes us the question of orientation. Outiwth the chamber each drawing can have any 1 of 4 possible orientations. This is especially difficult with the more abstract drawings made by Hill--outwith the actual chamber we are confronted with the question as to their correct orienation relative to their actual position in the chambers.

For example: below is a reproduction of one of Mr Hill's 28 drawings:

How was the above drawing actually orientated within the chamber? Of course, it can be any one of four possible orientations, thus:

But which of the four possible orientatiions is correct and how might we know? Fortunately Mr Hill seems to have had a method for telling us this--he signed all his drawings (as did some other witnesses) to give the correct orientation. If we can read the signature (i.e. the signature is the correct way up for reading) then this gives us the correct orientation of each of the drawings. In this sense, the signature on each drawing serves as a fixed 'compass point' giving us the correct orienation of the drawing as it appeared to Mr Hill. For example, the above drawing is orientated thus:

As you can see in the above image, Mr Hill's signature (reproduction) allows us to know the correct orientation of the drawing in the chamber.

Now, of the 28 drawings made by Mr Hill I was able to cross-check the orientations of 23 of them using Mr Perring's floor plan of the chambers (see Vyse 'Operations') and also by using some recent photos of the markings made by Dr Robert Schoch and Dr Colette Dowall. Five drawings were made by Hill which do not appear in Perring's darwing (and vice-versa) and thus could not be cross-checked. Here is the full results of the 28 darwings:

21 presented a perfect match i.e. the signatures on the drawings provided the correct orientation of the drawing

.

5 could not be cross-checked (for the reason stated above).

2 drawings did not match i.e. the signatures did not give the correct orientation of the glyphs in the chambers.

The 2 drawings that did not give the correct orientation contain the very markings that are under dispute in the first thread (see above); the markings that Vyse noted incorrectly in his personal journal. Here:

Okay--so, does anyone notice what is wrong in the two images above?

Yes, Mr Hill's signature gives the wrong orientation of these two drawings. Were Mr Hill to have remained consistent with every other drawing he made and signed he SHOULD have signed these two drawings thus to giver their correct prientation in Campbell's Chamber:

That Hill signed these two drawings horizontally strongly implies that this is how Hill originally observed these hieroglyphs and he instinctively signed the drawing with its 'correct' orientation when he had finished. Of course, his later decision to then rotate these two drawings 90 degrees to then copy them into Campbell's Chamber (as Vyse's personal journal shows).

The signature on these drawings giving the correct orientation of these drawings in the chambers is no mere accident. If ill had no clear method of presenting the correct orientation on his drawings the drawings would only be correct to the signature 1 out of 4 times. However, Mr Hill's drawings are orientated correctly by the signature 21 out of 28 (that's 3 out of 4) and way above a random event--this is to say that the signature was clearly used as the means to correctly give the drawing's correct orientation.

This then provides powerful circumstantial evidence that Hill originally observed the crew name and khufu cartouche in a horizontal orientation (hence why he signed it this way) and later copied these drawings (rotated 90 degrees) into Campbell's Chamber.

SC

Edited August 8, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[Bennu]

Okay, so why did he put two dots under the snake? Those aren't a real part of the hieroglyphics. They're just smudges like a bunch of other similar ones all over those stones. And maybe he just copied them laterally for greater clarity since they were the most significant ones. Saying that his signature indicated the correct orientation is like saying that Vyse drew the lines into his notebook drawings later. It is an unprovable assumption based on nothing in particular.

[Bennu]

Well, that was a short thread.

[Hanslune]

Well, that was a short thread.

Mercifully so

I was wondering if his new top secret "I'm gonna change the history of the world - soon to come info", is the 3rd hand account of relation of a guy whose GGG father worked with Vyse and who after reading Sitchin allegedly wrote down what had been passed down by word of mouth in the family that Vyse painted the names? If so that is old stuff and not particularly believable.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I don't get why if they're writing from top to bottom, they didn't orientate the hieroglyphs so they're all 'standing up' as it were.

T

H

I

S

Basically, rather the sideways based on the angle of viewing.

[badeskov]

Well, that was a short thread.

Luckily, because it has no substance, so I am happy he didn't pursue it. Then again, his silly claims have been torn apart time and again (here and elsewhere) and I doubt he has the guts to face that humiliation repeatedly.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Bennu]

I don't get why if they're writing from top to bottom, they didn't orientate the hieroglyphs so they're all 'standing up' as it were.

T

H

I

S

Basically, rather the sideways based on the angle of viewing.

It's because the drawings were done at the quarry before the stones were put in place. The cartouche was apparently drawn when the stone was in a standing position.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

It's because the drawings were done at the quarry before the stones were put in place. The cartouche was apparently drawn when the stone was in a standing position.

not according to the OP.

[Bennu]

not according to the OP.

Oh I see what you're saying, why would Vyse not have drawn the cartouche in its proper vertical format. Good point. I thought that when you said "they" you meant the workers. I suppose Scott would say that he was trying to make it look like an original marking done at the quarry but I think that would be going a little farther than necessary to carry off the supposed hoax.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Bennu

[Hanslune]

Oh I see what you're saying, why would Vyse not have drawn the cartouche in its proper vertical format. Good point. I thought that when you said "they" you meant the workers. I suppose Scott would say that he was trying to make it look like an original marking done at the quarry but I think that would be going a little farther than necessary to carry off the supposed hoax.

If you are bored with life and have nothing useful to do take a look at Scott's presentation and list the number of 'assumptions' required for it to work out the way he wants.

[questionmark]

If you are bored with life and have nothing useful to do take a look at Scott's presentation and list the number of 'assumptions' required for it to work out the way he wants.

What most trying to alter the historic diction don't understand: If it is complicated it most likely is wrong or erroneously assembled.

After the 1st "if" accuracy is gone and after the second you are in the realm of speculation because you just opened the door to infinite possibilities. Infinite possibilities might be good for an equation with two unknowns but absolute poison to describe events that actually happened.

[Hanslune]

What most trying to alter the historic diction don't understand: If it is complicated it most likely is wrong or erroneously assembled.

After the 1st "if" accuracy is gone and after the second you are in the realm of speculation because you just opened the door to infinite possibilities. Infinite possibilities might be good for an equation with two unknowns but absolute poison to describe events that actually happened.

Yep that is why earlier I responded to Scott's query about whether I would admit if his idea was possible.

I said yes it is possible in the same way it is possible that he is Benito Mussolini's great grandson (which IS possible if you make a large number of assumption in that ideas favor).

I have noticed over the years that he concentrates on possibilities while ignoring probability and plausibility.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Hanslune

[cladking]

What most trying to alter the historic diction don't understand: If it is complicated it most likely is wrong or erroneously assembled.

I believe you've inadvertantly used the right word here.

What people who support the paradigm don't seem to understand is that any simplicity

that might exist in the paradigm is the result of the fact it explains so little of the evidence.

What youmight be missing is that in science no single piece of evidence is ever unimpeach-

able. What Scott Creighton is trying to get people to see is that a lot of the paradigm is rest-

ing on evidence that could have been manufactured rather than real.

Perhaps this is exactly the reason the paradigm involves so many mysteries and makes so

much evidence "irrelevant"; the paradigm is wrong because of manufactured evidence.

[Hanslune]

I believe you've inadvertantly used the right word here.

What people who support the paradigm don't seem to understand is that any simplicity

that might exist in the paradigm is the result of the fact it explains so little of the evidence.

What youmight be missing is that in science no single piece of evidence is ever unimpeach-

able. What Scott Creighton is trying to get people to see is that a lot of the paradigm is rest-

ing on evidence that could have been manufactured rather than real.

Perhaps this is exactly the reason the paradigm involves so many mysteries and makes so

much evidence "irrelevant"; the paradigm is wrong because of manufactured evidence.

Or he is making stuff up to both puff up his ego and try to become a fringe author of note.

So which is easier to accept a fringe believer making up stuff or generations after generation of scientist making up stuff? Hmmmmm

Remember Scott must somehow make what evidence we have about the GP wrong or his own ideas won't fly. Which is why he spends so much time trying to find some flaw - instead of researching new things.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Hanslune

[questionmark]

Or he is making stuff up to both puff up his ego and try to become a fringe author of note.

So which is easier to accept a fringe believer making up stuff or generations after generation of scientist making up stuff? Hmmmmm

If you want to be a fringe author of note facts, lies or speculation becomes irrelevant: you have to be entertaining.

[cormac mac airt]

If you want to be a fringe author of note facts, lies or speculation becomes irrelevant: you have to be entertaining.

That's a polite way of saying "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."

cormac

[Kenemet]

If this is supposed to be a forgery, it's the lamest darn forgery in history. They darted off, put up twenty-odd markings but didn't bother to put up artificially faded texts from the Book of the Dead, for instance, or even short inscriptions such as are found on statues and stele of that date? And then get all hot and dirty and sweaty putting the names in unusual places when there were more convenient spots to place the names? And why paint when they could have easily scratched some nice-looking hieroglyphs.

Lepisus did that himself when he went to visit the GP in the 1840's.

Why bother with lame, amateurish looking forgeries when you could have easily carved beautiful symbols (ala Lepisus) in these hidden spots?

I don't see any justification for "OMG! THESE ARE SO FAAAAKE!!", frankly. Forgers of that age were much better than that and there's no purpose to Vyse's forgery, since the pyramid was already attributed to Khufu, and confirmed by his name in other locations in the mortuary commplex at the GP.

[Hanslune]

If you want to be a fringe author of note facts, lies or speculation becomes irrelevant: you have to be entertaining.

Absolutely and you must come up with new fantastic stuff all the time. Scott's failure with the seed vault idea was just that it was so mundane an idea and uninteresting to the fringe.

They want aliens, time travel, Atlantis, alternative dimensions, not some boring human culture that makes cool things using hard labor and craftsmanship.

[scorpiosonic]

If you want to be a fringe author of note facts, lies or speculation becomes irrelevant: you have to be entertaining.

And/Or Eric Von D.....he did well at first, most of the smart ppl finally caught on to the 'hoaxes game' but their books still sell.

Now the Fringe Authors must work harder to sell less books....maybe a guest appearance on Ancient will give SC the boost he needs.....

[questionmark]

And/Or Eric Von D.....he did well at first, most of the smart ppl finally caught on to the 'hoaxes game' but their books still sell.

Now the Fringe Authors must work harder to sell less books....maybe a guest appearance on Ancient will give SC the boost he needs.....

If you want to fringe something forget aliens and archeology, the theme is beaten to death... try something like "the big coming economic collapse".

[Bennu]

If this is supposed to be a forgery, it's the lamest darn forgery in history. They darted off, put up twenty-odd markings but didn't bother to put up artificially faded texts from the Book of the Dead, for instance, or even short inscriptions such as are found on statues and stele of that date? And then get all hot and dirty and sweaty putting the names in unusual places when there were more convenient spots to place the names? And why paint when they could have easily scratched some nice-looking hieroglyphs.

And why make it a work gang marking with "The friends of", or whatever it actually says, preceding the cartouche? Wouldn't simply drawing the cartouche have sufficed? But, yeah, the sheer number of drawings up there is the biggest problem for forgery claimers, and the two different forms of Khufu's name. That would only serve to cause confusion and raise questions. And there's not one mistake in all those drawings. Even after all these years of advances in hieroglyphics analysis nobody has said "hey, some of these hieroglyphs are wrong".

Edited August 9, 2014 by Bennu

[Hanslune]

If you want to fringe something forget aliens and archeology, the theme is beaten to death... try something like "the big coming economic collapse".

That's true it is beaten to death and perhaps recycling of human history - a constant rise and fall of human civs, whatever might draw more fringe interest.

[cladking]

And why make it a work gang marking with "The friends of", or whatever it actually says, preceding the cartouche? Wouldn't simply drawing the cartouche have sufficed? But, yeah, the sheer number of drawings up there is the biggest problem for forgery claimers, and the two different forms of Khufu's name. That would only serve to cause confusion and raise questions. And there's not one mistake in all those drawings. Even after all these years of advances in hieroglyphics analysis nobody has said "hey, some of these hieroglyphs are wrong".

How can anyone say there are any errors when we are constantly revising

our interpretations of what everything means? Egyptologists even believe that

there are numerous errors in the PT so why would grafitti written by illiterates

be free from errors. Scott Creight has even suggested pone of the glyphs might

possibly be better interpreted as "burners of Khufu".

I am the only one who knows he doesn't know?

Anyone?

How can you be so sure of the language when none of it makes a whit of sense

and everything that comes close doesn't fit the paradigm?

[cladking]

So which is easier to accept a fringe believer making up stuff or generations after generation of scientist making up stuff? Hmmmmm

You missed my point but I guess it's no matter.

Egyptology is not a science.

[Bennu]

I found a thread by SC about these glyphs http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=264655 and a member called kmt_sesh posted an image showing similar work gang glyphs from Menkaure's pyramid. Vyse must have been aware of those glyphs so why would he leave out the "mouth" glyph seen in the Menkaure work gang name? He would have copied it exactly and simply put Khufu's name in the cartouche.