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 -

The Great Pyramid Hoax - Episodes 1 & 2


Scott Creighton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hey UM!

A couple of documentaries I made some time ago aimed at those who can consider evidence objectively and dispassionately and who possess an open mind [so, not for those who are blinkered and hidebound to mainstream Egyptology - strongly suggest you folk give these a miss].

Apologies in advance for the AI synth narration. You can, however, turn on Youtube subtitles and mute sound if you find the AI narration too difficult. 

 

 

The third and final episode will be released in the not too distant.

Enjoy!

SC

 

 

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

[snip]

Good grief. Why Scott, why? 

For those actually interested in the truth please see here: The REAL Khufu Cartouche HOAX.

And by the by, Journeys to the Mythical Past was published in 2007, not 1980. 1980 was Stairway to Heaven, you know, the other Sitchin book you "borrowed" his ideas from. If you can't get such simple facts right just a few minutes in, why bother with the rest? 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Good grief. Why Scott, why? 

For those actually interested in the truth please see here: The REAL Khufu Cartouche HOAX.

And by the by, Journeys to the Mythical Past was published in 2007, not 1980. 1980 was Stairway to Heaven, you know, the other Sitchin book you "borrowed" his ideas from. If you can't get such simple facts right just a few minutes in, why bother with the rest? 

Excellent Lee.  You were very quick to notice the small date contradiction between my 2 docs. 

Now imagine if Col. Vyse had not altered the inscription date in the Lady Arbuthnot inscription at the end of his 2nd volume.  Imagine he had published the chamber's true inscription date of May 9th in that section of his book.

Just how quick do you think it would have taken anyone to notice the contradiction he had made in his book had he not altered that chamber's inscription date? Probably have taken someone about the same amount of time to notice Vyse's contradiction as it took you to notice mine.

But because Vyse fraudulently altered LA Chamber's inscription date to agree with the opening date he presents in Vol 1, it has taken the best part of 200 years to catch him out.

Cheers,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think basing an entire theory on, "Sitchin was RIGHT!", is building on quicksand.

I watched half of number one and the evidence presented was speculative and underwhelming. At least to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, I thought the Pyramid Hoax was that Bosnian pyramid thing. Oh wait, don't tell me, I know, it's Ali... never mind. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, wait, I see the real hoax now, that video is in 480p, so that proves it was made before the Great Pyramid was built! 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2022 at 12:23 AM, Scott Creighton said:

...

(Episode 2) https://youtu.be/lcGUlPXuWxU

...

1.  (03:20)  The problems associated with your misinterpretation of Pückler-Muskau's comments on Vyse and the GP have already been discussed here.

2.  (03:35)  Thanos5150 has already pointed out the publication dates of Sitchin's books are incorrectly noted in this video.  Dec 1980/Jan 1981 was the date of "The Stairway to Heaven", in which Vyse first (falsely) suggested that Vyse was responsible for forging Khufu's cartouche name.

As noted in various magazine articles and conferences in the early 1980s, Walter Allen first approached Sitchin in April 1983.

However, the account of Allen's contact (and his references to Brewer's presence at Giza) did not appear in published book form until "Journeys to the Mythical Past" (2007).

3.  (03:45)  The video repeats the claim about Brewer's presence at Giza.

However, the problem with this assertion is that Brewer was not present at Giza in 1837.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Windowpane said:

However, the problem with this assertion is that Brewer was not present at Giza in 1837.

I'm not interested in Brewer (or Puckler Muskau for that matter) as they are only peripheral to what the 2 video docs discuss. What you believe regards Brewer's presence at Giza in 1837 is up to you. In fact, you can even take Brewer and Puckler-Muskau out of the mix entirely and there are, as far as I'm concerned, still numerous anomalies with Vyse's claimed discoveries that need to be explained. Try dealing with the substance of the 2 docs rather than the periphery.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2022 at 10:58 AM, Scott Creighton said:

Excellent Lee.  You were very quick to notice the small date contradiction between my 2 docs. 

Yes. I've always been told I was "special". 

Not a "contradiction"- an error. The "contraction" is that you could make such an error in the first place. 

Quote

 

Now imagine if Col. Vyse had not altered the inscription date in the Lady Arbuthnot inscription at the end of his 2nd volume.  Imagine he had published the chamber's true inscription date of May 9th in that section of his book.

Just how quick do you think it would have taken anyone to notice the contradiction he had made in his book had he not altered that chamber's inscription date? Probably have taken someone about the same amount of time to notice Vyse's contradiction as it took you to notice mine.

But because Vyse fraudulently altered LA Chamber's inscription date to agree with the opening date he presents in Vol 1, it has taken the best part of 200 years to catch him out.

Blech. What are you doing Scott? With the possible exception of Atlantis and what an idiot Cladking is, this forgery nonsense has been talked about across multiple sites more than any other subject. The last one was just a few months ago which the thread got closed rather quickly. What is the point of dropping the bag of flaming poop that is these videos on the doorstep yet again? We all know what it is but can you be honest and just admit it? 

Maybe this flame bait nonsense is a clue: "...aimed at those who can consider evidence objectively and dispassionately and who possess an open mind [so, not for those who are blinkered and hidebound to mainstream Egyptology - strongly suggest you folk give these a miss]." which of course, assuming it were true in the first place, you know full well you are going to find little else here at UM so why say it unless to provoke the very people you are trying to dismiss from participating?     

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Yes. I've always been told I was "special". 

Not a "contradiction"- an error. The "contraction" is that you could make such an error in the first place. 

Blech. What are you doing Scott? With the possible exception of Atlantis and what an idiot Cladking is, this forgery nonsense has been talked about across multiple sites more than any other subject. The last one was just a few months ago which the thread got closed rather quickly. What is the point of dropping the bag of flaming poop that is these videos on the doorstep yet again? We all know what it is but can you be honest and just admit it? 

Maybe this flame bait nonsense is a clue: "...aimed at those who can consider evidence objectively and dispassionately and who possess an open mind [so, not for those who are blinkered and hidebound to mainstream Egyptology - strongly suggest you folk give these a miss]." which of course, assuming it were true in the first place, you know full well you are going to find little else here at UM so why say it unless to provoke the very people you are trying to dismiss from participating?     

Once again, nothing here that makes any attempt to actually deal with the substance of the videos. Just a whole lot of flim-flam, diversion and deflection. None of which is a proper answer as it does not, in any way, deal at all with the substance of the 2 videos.

"...forgery Nonsense... bag of flaming poop that is these videos..." ?  You're, of course, entitled to your opinion.  But I'm sure readers here will expect that you back up your position by presenting a thorough debunking of the substance of these two videos.  You can't just say "poop" and expect folks just to accept you at your word (though, as confirmation bias, there are those who will do precisely that). And pointing to other partial Khufu inscriptions that may or may not be present behind a block won't cut it - you have to actually show they DO continue behind those blocks to have some credible evidence that those particular painted marks are genuine.

So - what's your response to Vyse's manipulations of his June 16th page?  Why did Vyse AND Raven report nothing on May 6th?  Why did Vyse claim LA Chamber was opened 9th May?  Why did he alter the LA Inscription date to read May 6th in the Inscriptions section of his second volume?

Those are just some of the many questions we need answers to Lee.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

...

Why did Vyse AND Raven report nothing on May 6th?  Why did Vyse claim LA Chamber was opened 9th May? 

...

 

You are not the only one to ask these questions.  They were examined in Pössel, M. (1998), Description of the Hill Facsimiles.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Windowpane said:

 

You are not the only one to ask these questions.  They were examined in Pössel, M. (1998), Description of the Hill Facsimiles.

That's great. And . . . ? 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

That's great. And . . . ? 

Given that it somehow seems to have escaped you when it was posted previously, more detail here.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

Given that it somehow seems to have escaped you when it was posted previously, more detail here.

Yes, saw that. Still gave nothing about Possel's view.

Quote

WP: 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.

You can bet your life there's an inconsistency.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

WP: 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.

SC: Yes, saw that. Still gave nothing about Possel's view.

You can bet your life there's an inconsistency.

 

 

More about Pössel's view, and the inconsistency in the dates, appeared in the post:

 

Quote

 

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).

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

More about Pössel's view, and the inconsistency in the dates, appeared in the post:

 

 

All of which is presented in my 2nd video along with my interpretation of these anomalous facts.  But you have not told us what Possel thinks of this anomaly/inconsistency. Or you, for that matter.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Given that it somehow seems to have escaped you when it was posted previously, more detail here.

 

 

As my old handle used to say -- you can lead a horticulture but you can't make them think.

--Jaylemurph

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't know all about this. But during  WW2 my father was in Egypt and got to the great pyramid . Have photos of it and the Sphinx with sandbags . My dad didn't mention any painted cartouches. BUT he did mention that there were other chambers in the pyramid. There is a shaft running from the king's chamber to the queen's chamber. Think they did in the 1990s, 2000's they sent an rov and they encountered  a wall with metal  plugs or handles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh  yeah, if the cartouche with Kufu's name  in the Great Pyramid, could have been misspelled  by the actual biulders of the pyramid.. It's possible you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HollyDolly said:

Oh  yeah, if the cartouche with Kufu's name  in the Great Pyramid, could have been misspelled  by the actual biulders of the pyramid.. It's possible you know.

It wasn't misspelt.

There's more information on why cartouche names of Khufu were placed in the relieving chambers here  (pg 124 [PDF 150] onwards.

The names were part of the names of the work-crews who built the GP.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

It wasn't misspelt.

There's more information on why cartouche names of Khufu were placed in the relieving chambers here  (pg 124 [PDF 150] onwards.

The names were part of the names of the work-crews who built the GP.

Except the 2 videos in the OP strongly suggest, imo, that these painted markings were faked.

SC

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Except the 2 videos in the OP strongly suggest, imo, that these painted markings were faked.

 

 

Except that you've been told, here and elsewhere, for these many years past, that your suggestion is incorrect.

The problem is, you've never taken any notice.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

Except that you've been told, here and elsewhere, for these many years past, that your suggestion is incorrect.

The problem is, you've never taken any notice.

And rightly so. These anomalies exist. They STILL exist.  You even alluded to one of them yourself:

Quote

WP: 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.

Yes, it most certainly DOES put "...the Operations version strongly in doubt."  A book, lest we forget, that was written by Vyse. And a book whose contents were clearly manipulated in order that Vyse could cover up his attempted fraud that was about to backfire on him. And he almost got away with it. 

Until now.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.