Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Scott Creighton

Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber (Question)

245 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

mstower
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

I have plenty of other pieces of evidence to discuss.

All of them worthless.

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

So, excuse me if I don't bang on about Brewer day and night.

Which just goes to show how you’ve wavered and havered on the point.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Hanslune
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

You're a scientist, Hans. You believe in empirical evidence obtained through experimentation.

So do 'The Experiment'. Let us all know your results and then we can compare with the Vyse result.

SC

SC dude you think you can self-accept your own evidence and its valid? LOL 

pj6cEF3.jpg

Anyone who says and believes the above isn't worth talking too. I told you that before how many more times do I have to repeat that before you 'get it'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Just a reminder here to please discuss the topic - not other members.

This forum should not be used as a platform to carry out personal vendettas or to slander or defame other people.

Thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)

I placed SC on block again. No point in reading his stuff anymore.

Edited by Hanslune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
8 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

I'm quite certain you'd love to believe that. However, since none of the other luminaries here has been able to offer up a credible/plausible explanation to the question in the OP, perhaps you would like to give it a go?

SC

To be fair, you have never offered a credible or plausible explanation of how and why Vyse would do that in the first place.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I placed SC on block again. No point in reading his stuff anymore.

Well, I suppose that's one way of avoiding doing 'The Experiment'.

Simple FACT is Vyse made a claim in his published account (no one forced him into making such a claim) that he had visited LA's Chamber on 6th May in the company of Mr Raven and that during their initial inspection, they observed a number of things about the chamber including more limestone blocks and the precise dimensions of the chamber were taken.

Neither of them managed to observe a single one of the circa 120 painted hieratic signs (most of which are about 18 inches or so tall) even although they must surely have anticipated finding such given the alleged discovery of similar marks in the two chambers they had previously opened.

Set up a similar experiment with two of your friends or family, Hans. I would be gobsmacked if they didn't come out and tell you they found some hieroglyphics on your walls. 

Vyse expects us to believe that both he AND Raven completely missed every single one of these marks during that visit.

Righto.

For those to argue that it was possible for both men to miss all these marks, you're fooling only yourselves and insult the intelligence of the rest of us.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

I was rather under the impression I had no credibility among the luminaries here to begin with, so no big loss. 

SC

Then why waste everyone’s time — including your own — by posting here?

...unless you have some manner of unrequited love for Cladking, but chaçun a son goûte.

—Jaylemurph 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Simple FACT is Vyse made a claim in his published account (no one forced him into making such a claim) that he had visited LA's Chamber on 6th May in the company of Mr Raven and that during their initial inspection, they observed a number of things about the chamber including more limestone blocks and the precise dimensions of the chamber were taken.

You’ll have no trouble then confirming this simple FACT by quoting Vyse verbatim.  This paraphase is your interpretation.

And again, there’s not a peep of these details in what Vyse wrote on the day.  It’s not until the entry of May 20th that we see a table which includes the dimensions of Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber.

Your “argument” requires you to affirm at one and that same time that the published work is infallibly accurate and a deception.  That’s crazy.

What about this?  “The chamber above Nelson's (afterwards called Lady Arbuthnot’s) . . .”  Do we take that as evidence that Vyse had precognition?  Or do we assume that, better to explain things to the reader, he put into the “entry” for May 6th information which in truth was not known until after that date?  Your entire evidential basis here is that Vyse gave figures for the dimensions.  That’s a very unsafe basis for the inference you’re making.  He did similar with Wellington’s: gave the dimensions of the chamber before reporting the act of taking measurements.  He had to do things like this, to give the reader an adequate word picture.

And Creighton, the way Vyse chose to deliver information is not a window into his skull: it’s not an infallible guide to what he knew at any given time.

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Neither of them managed to observe a single one of the circa 120 painted hieratic signs (most of which are about 18 inches or so tall) . . .

That’s what you’ve read into it.

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Vyse expects us to believe that both he AND Raven completely missed every single one of these marks during that visit.

Vyse expects no such thing.  This scenario arises only in your interpretation.

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

For those to argue that it was possible for both men to miss all these marks, you're fooling only yourselves and insult the intelligence of the rest of us.

What was that about commenting merely to throw abuse?

You’re the one arguing that such a thing is properly inferred from the material.  The rest of us take it as a comment on the rationality of your assertions.  You “insist” on something which makes no sense and then come crying to us.

M.

Edited by mstower
To change a tense from past to present and extend italics in one case.
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Megaro
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Simple FACT is Vyse made a claim in his published account (no one forced him into making such a claim) that he had visited LA's Chamber on 6th May in the company of Mr Raven and that during their initial inspection, they observed a number of things about the chamber including more limestone blocks and the precise dimensions of the chamber were taken.

Neither of them managed to observe a single one of the circa 120 painted hieratic signs (most of which are about 18 inches or so tall) even although they must surely have anticipated finding such given the alleged discovery of similar marks in the two chambers they had previously opened.

For those to argue that it was possible for both men to miss all these marks, you're fooling only yourselves and insult the intelligence of the rest of us.

SC

Does Raven give a written account of the initial inspection of Lady Arbuthnot's chamber ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower

Creighton asks us to believe that in writing his cover story, Vyse let slip that on May 6th there were no “quarry marks” on the walls of the chamber.

Is that credible or plausible?

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
33 minutes ago, Megaro said:

Does Raven give a written account of the initial inspection of Lady Arbuthnot's chamber ?

Unfortunately not.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

"Creighton asks us to believe that in writing his cover story, Vyse let slip that on May 6th there were no “quarry marks” on the walls of the chamber."

You're getting warmer (slightly).

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
mstower
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

You're getting warmer (slightly).

Translation: “What have I got in my pocketses?”

If you have something to say, say it.  Share your words of wisdom.  Why would Vyse not simply lie about this?

Credible and plausible, please.

M.

Edited by mstower
To add a line.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
14 minutes ago, mstower said:

Translation: “What have I got in my pocketses?”

M.

That's more like it.

Harte

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

"Why would Vyse not simply lie about this?"

Now you're actually beginning to engage your brain. So - follow it through.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

"Why would Vyse not simply lie about this?"

Now you're actually beginning to engage your brain. So - follow it through.

SC

Is there something I can do to make this simple enough for you?

If you have something to say, say it.

Say what you have to say, say it clearly, see what happens.

Credible and plausible, please.

M.

Edited by mstower
To add a line.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
Posted (edited)

Oh, and by the way, Creighton, I’m simply stating what I thought in the first place: that you’re making out that Vyse made a damaging admission.

Am I wrong?  Curious readers wish to know.

It’s where your innuendo is going, whatever you say now—and innuendo is all you are offering this board.  Now that is an insult.

M.

Edited by mstower
To add a short paragraph.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
8 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Brewer's story is but one piece of the body of evidence I have amassed to prosecute the forgery hypothesis. I have plenty of other pieces of evidence to discuss. So, excuse me if I don't bang on about Brewer day and night. His story is hardly the be all and end all of the case against Vyse.

 

Not what you were saying six years ago:

 

[Scott Creighton] Posted April 20, 2013:

Quote

And there are also the charges of fraud levelled against him [Howard Vyse] by one of his own workers at Giza, Humphries Brewer. The leopard doesn't change its spots. Admittedly, there is only secondary evidence of this damming allegation from Walter Allen's 'notes' but if we are to discard secondary evidence in this regard then we might as well discard much of our history that has been built upon original primary sources (and secondary sources) that are now long lost to us I see little reason for Walter Allen to have fabricated this allegation. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/172788-sitchins-folly-graffiti-in-the-pyramid/?do=findComment&comment=4742659

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blackdogsun

I'm still not exactly sure of the real point Scott's trying to make here but for anyone interested in further reading on the validity of the quarry marks in question i'd highly recommend Kmt_sesh's thread here

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore
8 hours ago, Saru said:

Just a reminder here to please discuss the topic - not other members.

This forum should not be used as a platform to carry out personal vendettas or to slander or defame other people.

Thank you.

I'm closing this thread for the nonce for folks to really take Saru's warning in. Really, everyone here can indeed discuss this topic without discussing each other. Think about it while the thread is under review and heels cool please.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.