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
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Sure. That makes perfect sense - to those who prefer to pull the wool over their own eyes and believe in such a highly improbable scenario. On you go - knock yourselves out. I won't be following you unless someone who still believes these marks are genuine can explain this scenario in a rational and plausible manner.

I guess I'll probably be waiting some time.

SC

Remember what you wrote about commenting merely to throw abuse?  Scroll to the OP if you’ve forgotten.

M.

Edited by mstower
To change one word.
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
11 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Sure. It makes absolute sense that two men were able to miss absolutely every single quarry mark in this chamber when they were able to find similar (much fewer) painted marks on the first inspection of the other three chambers. Hill had no problem seeing them. Neither did Perring or, much later, Rowe. 

But Vyse and Raven - they saw hee-haw during their inspection.

Sure. That makes perfect sense - to those who prefer to pull the wool over their own eyes and believe in such a highly improbable scenario. On you go - knock yourselves out. I won't be following you unless someone who still believes these marks are genuine can explain this scenario in a rational and plausible manner.

I guess I'll probably be waiting some time.

SC

Mate, the other day in clear light it took me five minutes to find the tissue box I left that morning in my classroom. Two blokes not seeing something in torchlight in one room but finding it in another is entirely plausible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
7 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Mate, the other day in clear light it took me five minutes to find the tissue box I left that morning in my classroom. Two blokes not seeing something in torchlight in one room but finding it in another is entirely plausible.

Just ONE box of tissues and you actually managed to FIND it. Well done. That's more than Vyse was able to do. Now imagine if there were about FIFTY boxes, there were TWO of you searching for them and you spent 15-30 minutes in your search. How difficult would it have been, even in candle-light, for the both of you to find a single one of the boxes?

SC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
8 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Just ONE box of tissues and you actually managed to FIND it. Well done. That's more than Vyse was able to do. Now imagine if there were about FIFTY boxes, there were TWO of you searching for them and you spent 15-30 minutes in your search. How difficult would it have been, even in candle-light, for the both of you to find a single one of the boxes?

SC

Based on what evidence, Creighton?  You said that you were going to talk about Vyse’s journal—not his published work, his journal: what he wrote day by day, on the spot, in Egypt—yet you’ve shown us not one image of it and quoted not one word of it.

Why is that?

Why have you fallen back on the published work?

I think we know.

Clue:

operationscarrie02howa_0213.jp2&scale=4

lH72Xz.jpg

M.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Mate, the other day in clear light it took me five minutes to find the tissue box I left that morning in my classroom. Two blokes not seeing something in torchlight in one room but finding it in another is entirely plausible.

Hi SWoH,

Further to my previous post, here's something you can try at home - a little experiment if you like. (Indeed, you can all try this).

Get about 50 sheets of A4 paper. Copy some hieratic signs onto the pages. Find the darkest room in your house (a cellar would be ideal). Affix the 50 pages to three of the walls, placing them no higher than 3 feet. Turn all the lights off and ensure the room is pitch black. Give two family members (or friends) a lit candle each. Tell them to enter the darkened room with their candle (closing the door behind them). Ask them to search the walls (no higher than three feet) for signs of any strange markings in, let's say, 15 minutes. 

When they exit, ask them if they noticed any strange markings on the walls. Try the experiment a number of times with different people.

I'd be surprised in the extreme if a single one of your family or friends reported back to you that they found nothing on the walls.

Try it.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
4 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Hi SWoH,

Further to my previous post, here's something you can try at home - a little experiment if you like. (Indeed, you can all try this).

Get about 50 sheets of A4 paper. Copy some hieratic signs onto the pages. Find the darkest room in your house (a cellar would be ideal). Affix the 50 pages to three of the walls, placing them no higher than 3 feet. Turn all the lights off and ensure the room is pitch black. Give two family members (or friends) a lit candle each. Tell them to enter the darkened room with their candle (closing the door behind them). Ask them to search the walls (no higher than three feet) for signs of any strange markings in, let's say for 15 minutes. 

When they exit, ask them if they noticed any strange markings on the walls. Try the experiment a number of times with two different people.

I'd be surprised in the extreme if a single one of your family or friends reported back to you that they saw nothing.

Try it.

SC

Given a choice between discussing the evidence and making up an inane parlour game, Creighton goes for the parlour game.

Imagine my surprise.

M.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 5/25/2019 at 5:27 PM, Scott Creighton said:

Sure. It makes absolute sense that two men were able to miss absolutely every single quarry mark in this chamber when they were able to find similar (much fewer) painted marks on the first inspection of the other three chambers. Hill had no problem seeing them. Neither did Perring or, much later, Rowe. 

But Vyse and Raven - they saw hee-haw during their inspection.

He didn't remark on them until the chamber was "minutely examined"  and indicated a hurry to get to the next chamber.   I notice that he didn't find the quarry marks in Wellington until they took measurements and looked more closely.  This indicates that they're just breaking into the chamber, looking around, and if they see nothing, hunt the next spot to break into.  I notice that he doesn't seem to remark on other quarry marks until after he takes the dimension of a chamber.

This wasn't modern archaeology.  This was early archaeology which was little better than pot hunting.  It wasn't until Petrie that they got their act together on investigation procedures.

As to the "calcareous stone", that's another term for "limestone"  https://www.supremesurfacecleaners.com/blogs/stonecare/understand-your-stone-and-keep-it-looking-like-new-for-generations and limestone/like.  The "feathering" could be observed on nearby rocks.  They might have cleaned some of it off to see the quarry marks... who knows?  Again, their procedures aren't the modern equivalent.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
21 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

I'd be surprised in the extreme if a single one of your family or friends reported back to you that they found nothing on the walls.

Where did Vyse write “We found nothing on the walls”?

Your analogy is bogus.  As usual.

M.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
On 25/05/2019 at 11:27 PM, Scott Creighton said:

Sure. It makes absolute sense that two men were able to miss absolutely every single quarry mark in this chamber when they were able to find similar (much fewer) painted marks on the first inspection of the other three chambers. Hill had no problem seeing them. Neither did Perring or, much later, Rowe. 

But Vyse and Raven - they saw hee-haw during their inspection.

You were there?  Looking over their shoulders?

Which brings us back to the question of the evidence on which you have made these assertions.

You rely entirely on Vyse’s published work.  There might have been some excuse for this, were this all that you’d seen, but you’ve seen Hill’s facsimiles and Vyse’s original (manuscript) journal and made great play of having done so—yet here you rely on the published work just as much as Sitchin did.

Why?  I think we know, but in case not, I’ve given you a clue (above).

Go on, Creighton.  Carry on ignoring me.  See where it gets you.

M.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

 

Quote

Kenemet: He didn't remark on them until the chamber was "minutely examined" ...

SC: Well yes. That’s kinda the point we’re discussing.

Quote

Kenemet : and indicated a hurry to get to the next chamber.   

SC: After Vyse and Raven had spent some time inspecting this chamber and finding it empty. No sarcophagus of Khufu, no treasure – nothing. Not even a single quarry mark is found during this visit.

Quote

Kenemet :I notice that he didn't find the quarry marks in Wellington until they took measurements and looked more closely.  This indicates that they're just breaking into the chamber, looking around, and if they see nothing, hunt the next spot to break into. 

SC: And when Vyse DOES find quarry marks, his published account shows that he makes an entry on the day of the discovery of the marks (as we might expect since these were hugely important). He doesn’t wait three days to mention such an important discovery (that kinda defeats the purpose of a journal). Why would Vyse tell us that this chamber had more limestone wall blocks than the chambers below, that the workmanship in this chamber was inferior to the ones below, that it was slightly larger and yet make no mention of the explosion of quarry marks on the walls in this chamber? There are two men, crawling through this chamber on their hands and knees (so they’re not exactly going so fast that they’ll miss anything important) and yet we are expected to believe that Vyse AND Raven could entirely miss something in the order of around 120 painted hieratic signs, including several clear and complete cartouches!!  Those cartouches are Vyse hitting the JACKPOT!! And yet – nothing. Only silence in Vyse’s published account of this day. And that complete silence speaks volumes.

Quote

Kenemet : I notice that he doesn't seem to remark on other quarry marks until after he takes the dimension of a chamber.

SC: Finding these quarry marks in these previous two chambers (Wellington’s and Nelson’s) would most likely have had Vyse actively studying the walls of Lady Arbuthnot’s for more marks. And yet – nothing.

Quote

Kenemet: This wasn't modern archaeology.  This was early archaeology which was little better than pot hunting.  It wasn't until Petrie that they got their act together on investigation procedures.

SC: Vyse knows how to examine a wall and write what he sees thereon in a journal. He did it for the three other chambers so why couldn’t he do the same for this one?

Quote

Kenemet: As to the "calcareous stone", that's another term for "limestone"  https://www.supremesurfacecleaners.com/blogs/stonecare/understand-your-stone-and-keep-it-looking-like-new-for-generations and limestone/like.  The "feathering" could be observed on nearby rocks.  They might have cleaned some of it off to see the quarry marks... who knows?  Again, their procedures aren't the modern equivalent.

SC: The “feathering” (exudation/secretion), according to Vyse, occurs only in the topmost Campbell’s Chamber and in G3. Thus we have to accept that there was no obstacle to him observing the quarry marks on the walls he was evidently looking at in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber.

The critical timeframe here is when Vyse and Raven made their initial inspection of this chamber. There is no apparent obstacle (‘feathering’) preventing the men from observing the wall surfaces. The lighting was adequate enough that they could make measurements and observe other aspects of the chamber. They would have to be on their hunches as the chamber is only 3 feet high so they’re not exactly racing through it. There is an explosion of quarry marks on three of the walls that they evidently did not see during their initial inspection (as Vyse tells us it took a “minute examination” to find the marks some three days later).

If you buy that both Vyse and Raven could have missed all the marks in this chamber (around 120 of them) during their initial inspection of it then, of course, that’s your choice. But why not try my little experiment with some of your family or friends just to establish for yourself just how implausible it would have been for two people to have missed all of these marks during their inspection.

It simply IS NOT PLAUSIBLE.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
3 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

The critical timeframe here is when Vyse and Raven made their initial inspection of this chamber. . . .

On which you dodge discussing the evidence.

3 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

It simply IS NOT PLAUSIBLE.

Creighton,

You do not pronounce on what is and is not plausible.  You present your case.  We decide what is plausible in it.

M.

  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower

It would seem that Creighton is (still) ignoring me in the sense that he can’t see my posts at all.

Which makes it even easier for me to leave you collectively better informed.

There is a conflict in the evidence.  Either he is not aware of this (with implications for the quality of his “research”), or he is and has chosen to ignore it (with implications for how far you should trust him).

lH72Xz.jpg

M.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
26 minutes ago, mstower said:

Which makes it even easier for me to leave you collectively better informed.

Well boss, I never liked reading about Egypt. But I like reading you! :yes:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Were they specifically looking for quarry marks, or were they the typical Victorian explorer and looking for the sexy stuff like mummies and treasures they could “liberate”? Were quarry marks even a thing they knew about then?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Here is a link to a better picture of the one posted by mstower.  You can see some of the thin mason marks in the linked photo.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/pyramid-of-kheops-discharge-chambers-above-the-kings-news-photo/131251058?adppopup=true

There are some nice hi-res photos's of Campbell's chamber, but it is very difficult to find similar photos from the other chambers.  Similar mason marks can be easily seen in the hi-res photos from Col. Campbell's Chamber, especially near Sister Martin's graffiti. 

 

 

gettyimages-131251058-2048x2048 240.jpg

Edited by Megaro
content
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
On 5/25/2019 at 3:03 AM, Scott Creighton said:

Well, thus far no one has been able to offer what I consider to be a reasonable explanation why Colonel Vyse could have missed a whole bunch of these painted onto the wall blocks of LA's Chamber:

img%5D

The main reason for his failure, according to the comments thus far, is that Vyse nor Mr Raven (who was with him at the time) noticed any of the quarry marks during the initial visit due to poor lighting (wasn't a barrier in the chambers below) or because they were in a rush and not giving it too much attention.

Vyse and Raven are evidently examining the wall blocks in this chamber during this first visit as Vyse remarks “...and with a greater proportion of calcerous stone on the northern and southern sides...” He’s looking right at the walls here, people. He had time enough and adequate lighting to make measurements of the chamber. Are we seriously trying to say that during this activity he failed to notice a single one of these quarry marks? Seriously?

As I mentioned previously, having found quarry marks in the chambers below, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Vyse would have been fully anticipating finding more in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber and, indeed, that he would have been specifically searching for quarry marks upon these walls.

They’re big, bold and everywhere in this chamber:

FIGURE-19.jpg

But on this first visit Vyse and Raven notice Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Hee-haw.

Why?

SC

PS – Keep in mind also that this is the very same chamber where this bizarre event took place shortly after the quarry marks were ‘found’ in this chamber.

I take it by the existence of this thread that literally every other mystery from Ancient Egypt has been solved completely, since SC here is ginning one up from nothing. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
15 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Were they specifically looking for quarry marks, or were they the typical Victorian explorer and looking for the sexy stuff like mummies and treasures they could “liberate”? Were quarry marks even a thing they knew about then?

When Vyse first found the quarry marks (so-called) in Wellington’s Chamber, he had no idea what they were.  He wrote in his journal that they were “nothing like Hieroglyphics”.

Only I think when he discovered recognisable cartouches did he begin to understand the significance of what he had found.

M.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
22 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Were they specifically looking for quarry marks, or were they the typical Victorian explorer and looking for the sexy stuff like mummies and treasures they could “liberate”? Were quarry marks even a thing they knew about then?

I think they knew about quarry marks... at least they did by the time that Vyse's journal was published.  But they were looking for sexy stuff because that's what their patrons wanted.  No one got excited (or funded) "more rock.  quarry marks."  New chambers that could be named for a patron sponsor or nobles/royalty who supported them, yes.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

SC: After Vyse and Raven had spent some time inspecting this chamber and finding it empty. No sarcophagus of Khufu, no treasure – nothing. Not even a single quarry mark is found during this visit.

The published journal you presented doesn't indicate that he spent "some time inspecting the chamber."   You can tell, immediately, that the whole thing is made of limestone strictly by giving it a quick glance - it looks the same as the rocks in the other chamber, so there's no need to walk to the wall and gaze at it for a long time.  And he says that they moved on to the process of breaking into the next chamber.

Frankly, I think they were bored by seeing another empty chamber... but that's only speculation.  They weren't professional archaeologists.

Quote

SC: And when Vyse DOES find quarry marks, his published account shows that he makes an entry on the day of the discovery of the marks (as we might expect since these were hugely important).

What's your evidence for them being "hugely important"?  At the time they couldn't read them and if you look closely at the published ones, they couldn't even distinguish between the different types of bird hieroglyphs (among others) to copy them correctly.

Quote

He doesn’t wait three days to mention such an important discovery (that kinda defeats the purpose of a journal).

Isn't the published one an edited, cleaned up, and improved daily journal?  Is this the exact thing written in the handwritten journal?

Quote

Why would Vyse tell us that this chamber had more limestone wall blocks than the chambers below, that the workmanship in this chamber was inferior to the ones below, that it was slightly larger and yet make no mention of the explosion of quarry marks on the walls in this chamber?

If you go back and read the reports on the other chambers, he doesn't discover quarry marks on them until he actually goes to measure them.  The ones in Wellington's chamber weren't discovered until he and Perring and Marsh went to look at the walls in the evening (not when it was first entered but some time after.)

Anyway -- what's the point of this exercise?  It's clear that he entered and did work there and found the quarry marks.  So why should it matter if he found them when he first entered and looked around while he was directing the men to open the chamber above or if he found them after the Sabbath when he went there to look and take measurements?

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Megaro said:

Here is a link to a better picture of the one posted by mstower. . . .

Thanks for posting this link.  Here’s one which gets all of the Kheops pictures by Patrick Chapuis on Getty:

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/kheops-chapuis?events=122303008&family=editorial&phrase=kheops chapuis&recency=anydate&sort=best&page=1&suppressfamilycorrection=true#license

The one I posted is however the first one ever.

56 minutes ago, Megaro said:

. . . Sister Martin's graffiti.

Gone as if by magic:

F7YvGS.jpg

M.

Edited by mstower
To get the link right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Isn't the published one an edited, cleaned up, and improved daily journal?  Is this the exact thing written in the handwritten journal?

No, it is not.  Creighton knows this perfectly well, or should do.  He has seen the handwritten journal and has digital images of it.

It beggars belief.  Creighton who knows better is playing Sitchin’s trick of collapsing the distinction between the published work and the original journal.

M.

Edited by mstower
To fix a typo.
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane

The case presented by Scott Creighton is that Vyse, in his published work, all of which was written after the event, failed to mention the “quarry marks” in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber quite as soon as Creighton imagines they should have been mentioned - and that therefore Vyse “must have” forged them in the interim so carelessly revealed.  No other explanation is plausible.

Really?

Creighton would scarcely advance so poor an argument had he not already presented (to his own satisfaction) a compelling case for forgery.  This case includes (as we know) a whole slim volume’s worth of arguments.

In all of this, however, enquiring readers have yet to find plausible answers to these questions:

·         Why would Vyse have forged the marks? 

·         And where would he have copied them from?

There is (as we know) another book on the supposed Vyse forgery which contains material relevant to this discussion – The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer in particular, Pt I, Ch. 13 (“A Forger’s Sourcebook”), and Ch. 18 (“A True English Gentleman”). 

On the question of the two dates, 6th and 9th May, there is an inconsistency in the evidence which puts the Operations version strongly in doubt.

Note the section headed “Inscriptions” in the Appendix of Operations II: 145.  The inscriptions listed are those which J. R. Hill really did paint on Vyse’s instructions.  They include this text:

“Lady Arbuthnot’s chamber.  May 6, 1837.”

But this is not what we find in the chamber. 

There, we see “May 9th” (as shown in the photos posted above by mstower and others).  And on the facsimile sheets (as noted in Markus Pössel’s unpublished work, Description of the Hill Facsimiles, 1998), it is again the 9th which is specified as the date on which this chamber was opened (see The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer Pt. II: Appendix 7, quoting Pössel.)

(For a list of the dates when crew-marks in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber were discovered, see also Strange Journey Pt I: Table 3).

The day following 6th May was a Sunday (7th May) - which was when Vyse was in Cairo, visiting the Arbuthnots (Operations I: 256).

Finally, the question of Scott Creighton’s approach to the cartouche name Khnum-Khufu (of which various examples were found in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber) is examined in Strange Journey Pt II, Ch. 25, section “Carrying the Torch of the ‘Secret Cache’: Scott Creighton.”  Some of the improbabilities inherent in Creighton’s hypotheses are addressed earlier in Ch. 25, in the section: “The Secret of the Locked Portmanteau.”

Historical confusion surrounding this cartouche name, and what Lepsius (and Birch) had to say about it, is discussed in Strange Journey Pt II, Appendix 9. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
57 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I think they knew about quarry marks... at least they did by the time that Vyse's journal was published.

Marks of this general kind had been observed by Napoleon’s savants.  I do not know if they included ˤpr names.  In default of its being noted in the literature, I assume not.

Known to specialists.  Vyse was entirely at sea.

M.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
36 minutes ago, mstower said:

No, it is not.  Creighton knows this perfectly well, or should do.  He has seen the handwritten journal and has digital images of it.

It beggars belief.  Creighton who knows better is playing Sitchin’s trick of collapsing the distinction between the published work and the original journal.

M.

Indeed. Scotty has been personally admonished in the past in regards to his lack of understanding in respect to the differences between field operations/notes and published condensations. This is of particularly note given the time period and conditions involved. His "approach" repeatedly indicates his notable unfamiliarity with the realities of archaeological investigation, particularly during the very nascent stages of the studies involved.

One wonders if he even knows how to properly sharpen a trowel.

.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Anyway -- what's the point of this exercise?  It's clear that he entered and did work there and found the quarry marks.  So why should it matter if he found them when he first entered and looked around while he was directing the men to open the chamber above or if he found them after the Sabbath when he went there to look and take measurements?

 

I believe the Vyse lied / forgery narrative is merely a springboard to get to the juicier fringe theories, it is not intended to stand on its own.  These writers say no proof the pyramids were built to be tombs, but instead were constructed by or for the purpose of [insert blog or Youtube clickbait here].  Aliens, advanced ancient civilization, you have been lied to about the pyramids, etc.

Also, great early photo from Campbell's chamber !

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 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.