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 - Episode3 (Signs of the Crime)


Scott Creighton

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

Ok fair enough, I guess.  With the number of items that point contrary to your assertions why do you still insist on forgery?

...because he would then have to admit to have wasted nearly  a decade on specious trivia and his quest to become a notable fringe author had failed. Long ago I suggested he drop support for Atlantis - as 'everyone' did that and go with trying to show that there was a lost civilization 16,000 (dates vary) or so years ago - that might have been interesting, instead he resurrected Sitchin's argument.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jon101 said:

This is stupid. 

I know I should say more, build a cogent argument, etc. 

But others have done that, to no avail. 

It's just bloody stupid, Mr. Crieghton is obsessed with his own personal crusade and won't listen to reason. 

He must have laid all this out thousands of times and still continues to do so. 

Are you just seeking attention, Sir?. 

Yes, in my opinion he seeks validation and the downfall of his many enemy who have vexed him in pointing out his errors. He is a smarter version of Cladking (he gains kudos for actually publishing his ideas unlike Cladking). Such dedication to bad ideas is not usual. Coppens spent decades trying to convince people that folks from the Mediterranean came to North America to mine copper. Velikovsky that earth was part of solar billiard game and came from Saturn. Sitchin that he could read Sumerian. Even real scientist go off the mark at times

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Ok I'll give it a look.

Real quick question. If that is the case, doesn't it stand to reason that Vyse and others would have perpetrated similar forgeries all around the Giza complex as well as other sites associated with AE? Are there other examples of alleged forgeries?

Vyse and his team discovered a mummy-board with some bone fragments in the third pyramid. It was later found that neither of these items dated to the time of Menkaure and, indeed, the bones and mummy-board were themselves, centuries apart. Can't pin this on Vyse as evidence of another attempt at fraud because the evidence is too thin. But who knows?

He certainly perpetrated a fraud much earlier in his life, in 1807, during his campaign to become a member of the UK parliament.

SC

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Yes, Roth has a theory, it’s not proven fact. So now you double-down, trying to muster some piece of evidence to somehow try and prove the Vyse painted markings are genuine - ‘The Roth Defence’. Which, actually, is no defence at all for a number of reasons. Let's have a look.

And from her book, here’s Roth’s diagram of the distribution of the crew names throughout the Vyse Chambers:

image.thumb.png.538d14a275967119fdd1233f980c56a1.png

But here’s what we actually find:

image.thumb.png.fd6760c371d022db680e37fde8244380.png

 

(Replying to post #30 as briefly as I can, as I get the impression that some readers are now becoming rather jaded with the whole thing):

Your treatment of Roth, Scott, which is an attempt to use an image to misrepresent the evidence.

What you are telling us with the concocted graphic is that there is a complete ˤpr name including cartouche of Khufu on the northern side of Campbell’s Chamber.
 
The problem is that there is no such ˤpr name, and no such cartouche. 
 
What there is (cross-referencing Perring and Rowe) is the tail end of a cartouche name of which only the concluding character (a bird, probably quail chick) is clear.
 
The named king on this evidence could equally well be Sahure, although it is more likely to be Khnum-khufu as written elsewhere in the chambers and consistent with the overall scheme as described by Roth. 
 
The same with the complete ˤpr name including cartouche of Khnum-khufu on the southern side of Lady Arbuthnot’s.  There is no such ˤpr name and no such cartouche. 
 
So cross-referencing Perring and Rowe suggests that there is no basis whatsoever for your claim.
 
Your supposed refutation of Roth is spurious.
 
So let's look at some of what you've proposed so far:
 
-  One non-existent witness (Humphries Brewer)
-  One non-existent ˤpr name and cartouche.
 

Not looking great.

Edited by Windowpane
spelling
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

So let's look at some of what you've proposed so far:

 
-  One non-existent witness (Humphries Brewer)
-  One non-existent ˤpr name and cartouche.

Still nibbling at the edges. Sahure?  Are you seriously suggesting that there's another (partial) king's name, Sahure, painted in these chambers?  Tell us:

1) Why would Sahure's name be painted within a structure built by Khufu?

2) If we accept that crews painted these markings on the stone blocks, why would this partial king's name not also be (part of) a crew name?

3) Why did you not mention the White Crown gang on the south wall of LA's Chamber? 

Quote

Your supposed refutation of Roth is spurious.

Off you trot, Stower.

Here WP:

image.thumb.png.8c4635346ff306040d58924f3bd480a5.png

Happier? Now who do you think the partial cartouche belongs to?  Khufu (Khnum-Khuf) or Sahure (a king not even yet born when the GP was being built)?  Why would it have been placed on the stone? 

SC

 

 

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

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Vyse and his team discovered a mummy-board with some bone fragments in the third pyramid. It was later found that neither of these items dated to the time of Menkaure and, indeed, the bones and mummy-board were themselves, centuries apart. Can't pin this on Vyse as evidence of another attempt at fraud because the evidence is too thin. But who knows?

He certainly perpetrated a fraud much earlier in his life, in 1807, during his campaign to become a member of the UK parliament.

SC

But to stay focused on Egypt and the question as I asked, the answer is no. Very well then.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Ok I'll give it a look.

Real quick question. If that is the case, doesn't it stand to reason that Vyse and others would have perpetrated similar forgeries all around the Giza complex as well as other sites associated with AE? Are there other examples of alleged forgeries?

As Scott reminds us ad nauseum, nothing is impossible if you just believe it to be true. "IMO" is the new standard of truth.  

As noted many a time there are dozens and dozens of instances of the Khufu cartouche at Giza (most often carved in relief on stone) dated to the OK directly related to the G1 pyramid/pyramid complex "Akhet Khufu" and some related to Khufu himself. 

A few examples: 

Senenuka-Overseer of the Pyramid Town of Khufu. Pharaohs/Pyramid complexes had "mortuary cults", caretakers of the facility by and large, that lasted decades if not centuries after the fact which over 70 individuals from the 4th-6th Dynasty are buried at Giza. Senenuka is but one of them. We know these individuals are members of the mortuary cult because of their titles with the cartouche Khufu in it somewhere identify them as such. Same is true for Khafre and Menkaure.  

4 cartouches of Khufu on the underside of the Khufu II boat pit sealed 20+ ton cover stones. 

Several fragments from his causeway and/or temples reference Khufu as a person including depictions of him. 

Khafre and Menkaure are both connected to their associated pyramids. All are found in their chronological orders (including Djedefre) in any king list you look at from any era including the OK. Everyone throughout DE history connected these three pharaoh's with these three respective pyramids. There was no confusion as to which belonged to who or if there was someone else entirely or that they were built before a global catastrophe that occurred several thousand years before their time. These three pharaohs (4 when we include Djedefre) come as a "set". There is no separating them. Even Herodotus  was quite certain these three pharaohs were directly associated with their respective pyramids.

Other than Giza, again as noted ad nauseum because of this stupidity, there are many other instances of the Khufu cartouche(s), often with the different titularies appearing together not to many many artifacts that bear his name including those found a far a field as the northern Levant (Syria).

So even if we accept Scott's "IMO" and that Vyse somehow for some inane reason was able to forge the 2 dozen instances of Khufu's names in the RC, including 12 full/partial cartouches, including the ass end of the same Khufu gang name 6ft away from the "fake" that Vyse expertly covered in ancient mortar:

OIP.3rL99ot292fMuTZz6hurbgHaE9?pid=Api&r

Literally everything else in the totality of DE history connects Khufu in some way to G1. Not Surid, not Sauron, not Joseph or whatever nonsense one subscribes to. Khufu. Is it possible there is more to G1's story than just Khufu? Sure, but there is no doubt Khufu at the very least was clearly a significant part of it which in the end it is his pyramid.     

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Literally everything else in the totality of DE history connects Khufu in some way to G1. Not Surid, not Sauron, not Joseph or whatever nonsense one subscribes to. Khufu.  

image.png.b3fbbe4d29cd43dfb1bfc1fd13d395b0.png

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

But to stay focused on Egypt and the question as I asked, the answer is no. Very well then.

The answer is, 'not that we presently know of'. However, one fraud by him at Giza is one fraud too many in my book.

SC

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again: as briefly as I can manage:

1) SC: Why would Sahure's name be painted within a structure built by Khufu?

You’ve misunderstood my point. Of course I’m not suggesting that Sahure’s name was painted there. What I’m saying was that, on the evidence, those characters could just as well read “Sahure” as “Khufu.”

2) SC: If we accept that crews painted these markings on the stone blocks, why would this partial king's name not also be (part of) a crew name?

We don’t have it. There is no justification for proposing the existence of a whole name when it’s not there. The scratching-out illustrated by Roth shows that this is conjecture only.

3) SC: Why did you not mention the White Crown gang on the south wall of LA's Chamber?

I did.  I wrote this:

Quote

The same with the complete ˤpr name including cartouche of Khnum-khufu on the southern side of Lady Arbuthnot’s.  There is no such ˤpr name and no such cartouche.

Did you not understand that this is the same thing?  Certainly as you illustrated it.  I see now that you have changed your illustration, removing the cartouche and leaving only the characters which follow the cartouche in other examples, in doing so conceding that the cartouche you showed earlier is nonexistent. 

So far, so good.  

Now, consulting Perring (both sets of lithographs) and cross-referencing with Rowe, I find no sign of the other characters either (on the south wall of Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber as specified).  The ˤpr name is entirely absent.  So what point are you trying to make regarding it?  An absent ˤpr name does not refute Roth.

Moreover, there is an even more glaring error.  The ˤpr name with (full) cartouche of Khufu is on the south side of Campbell’s Chamber, not the north side. 

Get the details right and then we can talk.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

Get the details right and then we can talk.

Okay - I hope we can agree on this amended diagram (thanks for the correction):

image.png.ef78c88777db5f10384f681958b3877b.png

So, no Sahure.  Good - I didn’t think so.

Thus, the partial cartouche in Campbell’s is either that of Khufu or Khnum-Khuf. If we accept that the painted stone markings on all other stones present crew names, then (given the context), I see no reason why these partial markings should not also be considered as crew names. Roth does, after all, include one White Crown gang where the cartouche is almost entirely obliterated.

Little point, however, in debating the partial cartouche since (thanks to your correction), it could be either Khnum-Khuf (which would be okay) or Khufu (which would not be okay) – but we’ll likely never know, so the debating point here is moot. As for the partial gang name on the southern side (White Crown), what is this likely to be?  Now you can deny this is the partial name of the White Crown of Khnum-Khuf gang all you like (just because the cartouche itself is not visible), but again, given this context, this is almost certainly what it is. Roth allows a White Crown gang in the north side with an almost entirely obliterated cartouche but not on the southern side simply because the cartouche is not visible? That Roth omitted from her diagram what is almost certainly a partial crew name of the White Crown gang, appears to me more like expediency, because it doesn’t fit with her theory.

To summarise then. On the northern side of the Vyse Chambers we can definitively say we have the White Crown gang at work. On the southern side we can say we have Companions of Khufu, the Pure Ones of Horus Mededu, (a slight variation of the Pure Ones of Horus Mededu) and yes, the White Crown gang (on both sides of the chambers).  Just one crew working in the north and three (possibly four) gangs working in the south of the chambers.

As I said in my original comment on this – not quite the compelling picture Roth presents.

But, as previously stated, this isn’t the only problems with Roth’s theory.

Let’s assume here for a moment or two, that Roth’s theory actually does have some merit, that different crews/gangs took responsibility for constructing different elevations/sides of the pyramid (including the Vyse Chambers).

In his published work, Vyse tells us in a couple of places that he copied markings from various stones in the north and south of the pyramid – he even shares some of them in his published work. Now, let’s assume that Vyse notices several crew names in the northern and southern rubble piles.  He notices also that the different crew names are delimited to particular sides of the pyramid’s rubble piles. So, he notices the distribution pattern of these crew names in the rubble piles – one type in the northern rubble pile and another type in the southern rubble pile. Not so difficult to observe.  The next step is easy – he simply replicates this observed distribution pattern from the northern and southern rubble piles onto the northern and southern walls and roof blocks of the newly opened chambers. Easy-peasy. Job done. Except, from the distribution that was done (image above), his painters messed up on at least one occasion.

And:

Quote

There are no footprints or other evidence of human activity to be seen within the [small void] chamber. From here.

In the small void chamber, a chamber that is not dissimilar to Campbell’s, the above quote suggests that no painted markings (including painted crew name markings upon the wall and roof blocks) have been found here nor, of course, any discernible distribution pattern.

Bang goes Roth’s theory.

And this absence of crew names / distribution pattern in the small void chamber further begs the question – why then do we find such a profusion of painted crew names upon the wall and roof blocks of the Vyse Chambers?

SC

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

4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Vyse ... certainly perpetrated a fraud much earlier in his life, in 1807, during his campaign to become a member of the UK parliament.

 

Er ... no, he didn't.

In case something about the point makes it hard to grasp, I'll just repeat it, as simply as I can.

Given the state of the rules governing elections at that time:

Vyse.  Didn't.  Break.  Any.  Laws.

Hence he was:

Never.  Found.  Guilty.  of.  Breaking.  Any.  Laws.

(As explained to you, over and over, in detail, on numerous occasions).

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: Oh please!  Vyse would only have entered the "tight space" himself after it was safe to do so. Same with Raven and Hill. They climb up, making sure the way is clear and safe. The independent witness then follows. Even before Vyse had opened the first Chamber (Wellington's), Puckler-Muskau told Vyse that he'd find an inscription in the chamber. I'm fairly certain that the Prussian would have been happy to join Vyse for the initial exploration. And any number of others. Vyse wanted witnesses.  Just not during the initial inspection of each chamber. 

Spoken like a man who's never done any fieldwork.  

You're making a lot of assumptions about how these things go down (like Just Knowing things are going to be there and Just Happening to have extras lurking around the digsite, waiting to be shown all the discoveries.)  

Quote

SC: With the lighting they had, they were perfectly able to (allegedly) find the marks on the walls of the two previous chambers they had opened (Wellington's & Nelson's), so why would LA's have been any more difficult, especially since this chamber has more markings than any of the others?  With the same lighting, they were able to measure the chambers and inspect the chamber walls.

Again, spoken like someone who's never done fieldwork.

It's VERY easy to miss details on a first inspection.  I've seen it done, myself - where you have to go back to photographs and other evidence (taken after the fact) to pick up the details that you missed on first glance.  And this is not a huge sign nor is it in bright (fresh) red ochre paint.

Which brings up another question... just HOW did he know how to make red ochre paint (with the same formula used by ancient Egyptians) and make it look old?  And then paint a series of signs in a language that he didn't know (and had to send to England to have translated) - a UNIQUE set of signs that turned out to be grammatically correct but were not actually translated until a few years after publication of his books?

Quote

Wrong. I Assert a fraud was likely perpetrated because of:

  • In his private journal, Vyse presents a Khufu cartouche with no lines in the disk and states right beside it: “cartouche in Campbell’s”.  On the same page we see a second cartouche with ‘||’ strokes underneath now with 3 lines in the disk and lots of edit and cross-reference markings on the page. A Khufu cartouche with no lines in the disk now becomes a Khufu cartouche with lines in the disk (see video 1).
  • All of the markings in these chambers are written right-to-left except the numbers (the 10 signs) which have been written backwards (see video 3).
  • Two men, Vyse and Raven, explored LA’s chamber and made no report of having found a single painted sign on any of the chamber walls during that initial visit, even though they were clearly inspecting the walls and, given the alleged discovery of signs in the two chambers previously opened, would likely have been anticipating such a discovery and actively searching the walls for such painted marks. But no – they are ‘found’ four days later. (see video 2)
  • A witness from the time stated that “Faint marks were repainted, some were new” (see video 1)
  • There is no mention in Vyse’s private journal of a ‘discovery’ of markings in LA’s Chamber. (see video 2)
  • A sign from a group of signs on a wall block which Perring drew disappeared from the block by the time Hill drew it, no more than a day or so later (see video 3).
  • The sign that disappeared was a duplicate in this group of signs and drawn upside-down. It was the last sign of a crew’s name and yet it was drawn first (see video 3).
  • A single crew name was drawn over 2 wall blocks (see video 3).
  • Vyse lied about the opening date of LA’s Chamber, several times (see video 2).
  • Vyse misrepresented (lied about) material evidence (see video 2). Even one of your own sources describes this episode thus: “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 bet your life it puts Vyse’s Operations “strongly in doubt”. I’ve been trying to tell you this for years).
  • Before Vyse even opened the first of the Vyse Chambers (Wellington’s) a Prussian Prince (Hermonn von Puckler Muskau), a man who believed the pyramids were built entirely devoid of any writing, said to Vyse at Giza, that the British Colonel would find an inscription in the chamber he was trying to blast his way into. The Prussian’s prediction proved to be correct. How did Puckler-Muskau know?  Afterwards, in his own published account, the Prussian prince accused Vyse of faking the marks (video 2).

If there is just one thing to take away with you from the list above, it is this: Vyse lied (repeatedly). Then he misrepresented material evidence in order to cover up his lie. It's not just me saying this, the evidence shows this.

Why would you trust the word of a proven liar?

Why in the heck are you referencing some video?  We're supposed to sit through hours of video just to see your proof?  

A couple of points:  Ancient Egyptian is bidirectional... how in the heck does someone write it "backwards"?  And since the marks were considered fairly trivial at the time, why would finding one more (among the others with Khufu's name) bring fame/fortune/a desire to fake a sign?  It didn't prove anything, it supported what was already known.

As I said, if he'd wanted to fake something to bring himself fame and fortune, why not fake a Biblical inscription?  That would have made all the papers and made him world famous.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Okay - I hope we can agree on this amended diagram (thanks for the correction):

image.png.ef78c88777db5f10384f681958b3877b.png

So, no Sahure.  Good - I didn’t think so.

Thus, the partial cartouche in Campbell’s is either that of Khufu or Khnum-Khuf. If we accept that the painted stone markings on all other stones present crew names, then (given the context), I see no reason why these partial markings should not also be considered as crew names. Roth does, after all, include one White Crown gang where the cartouche is almost entirely obliterated.

Little point, however, in debating the partial cartouche since (thanks to your correction), it could be either Khnum-Khuf (which would be okay) or Khufu (which would not be okay) – but we’ll likely never know, so the debating point here is moot. As for the partial gang name on the southern side (White Crown), what is this likely to be?  Now you can deny this is the partial name of the White Crown of Khnum-Khuf gang all you like (just because the cartouche itself is not visible), but again, given this context, this is almost certainly what it is. Roth allows a White Crown gang in the north side with an almost entirely obliterated cartouche but not on the southern side simply because the cartouche is not visible? That Roth omitted from her diagram what is almost certainly a partial crew name of the White Crown gang, appears to me more like expediency, because it doesn’t fit with her theory.

To summarise then. On the northern side of the Vyse Chambers we can definitively say we have the White Crown gang at work. On the southern side we can say we have Companions of Khufu, the Pure Ones of Horus Mededu, (a slight variation of the Pure Ones of Horus Mededu) and yes, the White Crown gang (on both sides of the chambers).  Just one crew working in the north and three (possibly four) gangs working in the south of the chambers.

As I said in my original comment on this – not quite the compelling picture Roth presents.

But, as previously stated, this isn’t the only problems with Roth’s theory.

Let’s assume here for a moment or two, that Roth’s theory actually does have some merit, that different crews/gangs took responsibility for constructing different elevations/sides of the pyramid (including the Vyse Chambers).

In his published work, Vyse tells us in a couple of places that he copied markings from various stones in the north and south of the pyramid – he even shares some of them in his published work. Now, let’s assume that Vyse notices several crew names in the northern and southern rubble piles.  He notices also that the different crew names are delimited to particular sides of the pyramid’s rubble piles. So, he notices the distribution pattern of these crew names in the rubble piles – one type in the northern rubble pile and another type in the southern rubble pile. Not so difficult to observe.  The next step is easy – he simply replicates this observed distribution pattern from the northern and southern rubble piles onto the northern and southern walls and roof blocks of the newly opened chambers. Easy-peasy. Job done. Except, from the distribution that was done (image above), his painters messed up on at least one occasion.

And:

In the small void chamber, a chamber that is not dissimilar to Campbell’s, the above quote suggests that no painted markings (including painted crew name markings upon the wall and roof blocks) have been found here nor, of course, any discernible distribution pattern.

Bang goes Roth’s theory.

And this absence of crew names / distribution pattern in the small void chamber further begs the question – why then do we find such a profusion of painted crew names upon the wall and roof blocks of the Vyse Chambers?

SC

We don't know that they're absent.

They could be painted on surfaces that are touching other blocks - without actually dismantling each and every stone (and scanning for traces of paint), we don't know whether they're present or they're absent.  The chambers could have been built during different years or with different overseers who preferred to paint on different sides of the rocks.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kenemet said:

We don't know that they're absent.

They could be painted on surfaces that are touching other blocks - without actually dismantling each and every stone (and scanning for traces of paint), we don't know whether they're present or they're absent. 

SC: Indeed we don’t. But that’s not the point of that particular side discussion.

Quote

K: The chambers could have been built during different years or with different overseers who preferred to paint on different sides of the rocks.

That's not Roth's theory. And they're not painting "different side of the rocks". Their building one side of the chamber which, according to Roth, is how the gangs operated. Except here we see the White Crown gang operating / building two sides of a chamber which, contradicts Roth's theory. As does the newest chamber where there are no crew names apparently on any of the blocks. We only have evidence of markings from the Vyse Chamber. Some say some markings were found in Davison's but no one has ever seen what these are as no images have ever been made public.

SC

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kenemet said:

You're making a lot of assumptions about how these things go down (like Just Knowing things are going to be there and Just Happening to have extras lurking around the digsite, waiting to be shown all the discoveries.) 

SC: It’s not an assumption to say that Vyse wanted witnesses. It’s not an assumption to say that if Vyse wanted his discoveries properly authenticated whereby he could never be charged with impropriety, then the best way to do so would have been to have an independent observer enter each chamber at the same time Vyse did (i.e. within minutes). That’s not assumption. It’s plain common sense.

In your world we are expected to believe that it would have been beyond the wit of Vyse to find a suitable independent witness to go with him when he received word that a chamber had been opened. You’re kidding yourself. 

Vyse wanted witnesses. But only when he was ready for them which, as we observe, was only ever after the fact. Which stinks.

Quote

K: It's VERY easy to miss details on a first inspection.  I've seen it done, myself - where you have to go back to photographs and other evidence (taken after the fact) to pick up the details that you missed on first glance.  And this is not a huge sign nor is it in bright (fresh) red ochre paint.

SC: What in the blazes are you wittering about?  

Here’s one of Hill’s 1:1 facsimile drawings (posterised for copyright reasons) which should give you an idea of scale:

image.png.ce0bf5d37e5e24501d35c712c902ab23.png

 

SC: The signs aren’t exactly tiny. Now, how do you think Mr Hill was able to copy those markings? If he could copy them, then he could see them (with whatever lighting they used).  Just not Vyse or Raven though - they both totally missed every single one of them.

LA’s Chamber has more of these signs than any other chamber – over 100 signs. According to Vyse’s published account (which his private account contradicts), Vyse claims to have found painted markings in every other chamber on the very day each was opened. Vyse, by this point had allegedly discovered painted markings upon the walls of Wellington’s and Nelson’s.  This would have given Vyse the heads-up that he should check the walls of LA’s Chamber for similar markings when it was finally blasted open. And yet, somehow, not one but two men, seemingly missed every single one of the 100 or so wall markings in LA’s chamber during the initial inspection of that chamber; missed when they were actively inspecting the walls and were taking chamber measurements. There’s no report from the initial inspection of a single marking upon any wall. 

If the lighting equipment they had in 1837 (oil lamps, candles) permitted them to (allegedly) find the markings on the first day in the two other chambers (that had much fewer inscriptions), do explain to me why it would have been so difficult in LA’s Chamber that had many more wall markings of which the two men would surely have been anticipating. Explain it to me.

Quote

K: just HOW did he know how to make red ochre paint (with the same formula used by ancient Egyptians) and make it look old?

SC: Jeez! This is basic stuff:

Quote

Mr. Perring states, that he has not observed inscriptions upon stones quarried upon the spot, but only upon those brought from the Mokattam, and that the same red colouring, called moghrah, is now used in the quarries. - Vyse, Operations, Vol. 1, pp.258-259

SC: The local Egyptians were still making the stuff in 1837.  Is it the same formula?  Well, the question of its composition is actually one of the tests I would like to happen. I’m fairly certain that the moghra used in the various royal names in these chambers will be found to be ‘modern’, not ancient. Alas, we’ll likely never get to know.

Quote

K: And then paint a series of signs in a language that he didn't know (and had to send to England to have translated) - a UNIQUE set of signs that turned out to be grammatically correct but were not actually translated until a few years after publication of his books?

SC: I must have explained this a million times by now. Did you miss everything in this thread about the ‘secret cache’? 

Quote

K: Why in the heck are you referencing some video?

SC: Because that is what the OP is about – my latest video.

Quote

K: We're supposed to sit through hours of video just to see your proof

SC: Most people quite like to see proof of things. If you don’t, fine – don’t watch any of the videos. And they’re not “hours” long – ave about 22 mins or so.

Quote

K: A couple of points:  Ancient Egyptian is bidirectional... how in the heck does someone write it "backwards"? 

SC: Seriously? Have you been following any of this discussion? Go through it again – you’ll find what I’m actually saying. (Oh, and it’s explained in video 3 – just in case you can’t be bothered reading).

Quote

K: And since the marks were considered fairly trivial at the time, why would finding one more (among the others with Khufu's name) bring fame/fortune/a desire to fake a sign?

SC: As far as I’m aware, these were the first markings of their kind found. Placing them inside the Vyse Chambers ensured Vyse could ‘prove’ to the world that Khufu did indeed build the great pyramid. And, if your read my book, you’ll find that fame may not have been Vyse’s only motivation.

Quote

K: It didn't prove anything, it supported what was already known.

SC: Yes – the marks finally (ahem) ‘proved’ Khufu built the GP as Herodotus had said millennia before.

Quote

K: As I said, if he'd wanted to fake something to bring himself fame and fortune, why not fake a Biblical inscription?  That would have made all the papers and made him world famous.

SC: Christ on a bike!!!!  Are you serious?  Let’s see now – were there any ancient Hebrew marks written on any stone blocks lying around Giza that Vyse could have stumbled upon and copied? Almost certainly not! Walking around Giza, Vyse would almost certainly have seen the painted quarry marks at the temple of Menkaure. All ancient Egyptian ‘hieroglyphics’. In all of the mastaba tombs, does he see any ancient Hebrew? No, just more ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.  So why the hell would he write ancient Hebrew script into the pyramid?

Over and above which – as I told you before: you need to deal with the evidence as it is, not how you speculate it should have been.

SC

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

8 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Er ... no, he didn't.

In case something about the point makes it hard to grasp, I'll just repeat it, as simply as I can.

Given the state of the rules governing elections at that time:

Vyse.  Didn't.  Break.  Any.  Laws.

Hence he was:

Never.  Found.  Guilty.  of.  Breaking.  Any.  Laws.

(As explained to you, over and over, in detail, on numerous occasions).

SC: Just because Vyse was never convicted of his crime doesn’t mean he was innocent. He absolutely was guilty of his crime - just not convicted of it. Jimmy Saville wasn’t convicted either.

Here’s a little test. I’m going to ask you a question. It’s a question I am virtually certain you will refuse to answer. I’ll leave the UM members to draw their own conclusion on your refusal to answer my question.  Here it is:

Q: In British electoral law in 1807, was it illegal for an election candidate to pay someone for their vote? Yes or No?

Answer the question.

SC

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

On 3/25/2023 at 10:26 AM, Scott Creighton said:

...

  • In his private journal, Vyse presents a Khufu cartouche with no lines in the disk and states right beside it: “cartouche in Campbell’s”.  

...

 

No: he doesn't. 

Look:

XpgS1U.jpg

 

The text beside the cartouche name with the blank disks reads (as far as one can tell): “Cartouches in Tomb to the W. of Great Pyramid are different to the Suphis.”  (It's believed that what Vyse was referring to were cartouche names in the Tomb of Iymery, G 6020, the Tomb of Trades.)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: Just because Vyse was never convicted of his crime doesn’t mean he was innocent. He absolutely was guilty of his crime - just not convicted of it. Jimmy Saville wasn’t convicted either.

Here’s a little test. I’m going to ask you a question. It’s a question I am virtually certain you will refuse to answer. I’ll leave the UM members to draw their own conclusion on your refusal to answer my question.  Here it is:

Q: In British electoral law in 1807, was it illegal for an election candidate to pay someone for their vote? Yes or No?

Answer the question.

 

 

Here's one for you, Scott:

Did Vyse’s agents ensure that his voters in Beverley were paid after the election (thus keeping within the law as then stood)?

Yes or No?

Answer the question.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

Here's one for you, Scott:

Did Vyse’s agents ensure that his voters in Beverley were paid after the election (thus keeping within the law as then stood)?

Yes or No?

Answer the question.

What did I tell you folks - she wouldn't answer the question and I was right!  

Let's give it one more try.

Q: In British electoral law in 1807, was it illegal for an election candidate to pay someone for their vote? Yes or No?

(When you have answered the above, I guarantee you I will then respond to your subsequent question).

SC

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

What did I tell you folks - she wouldn't answer the question and I was right!  

Let's give it one more try.

Q: In British electoral law in 1807, was it illegal for an election candidate to pay someone for their vote? Yes or No?

...

The legality, or illegality, of any payment turned (inter alia) upon when it was made.

Since you found yourself unable to answer my question, let me come to your rescue.

Vyse’s agents ensured that his voters in Beverley were paid after the election (thus keeping within the law as then stood).

Consequently, he never broke any laws.

(More details, citations, etc., in Strange Journey, Pt. I, Ch. 18).

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

13 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

No: he doesn't. 

Look:

XpgS1U.jpg

 

The text beside the cartouche name with the blank disks reads (as far as one can tell): “Cartouches in Tomb to the W. of Great Pyramid are different to the Suphis.”  (It's believed that what Vyse was referring to were cartouche names in the Tomb of Iymery, G 6020, the Tomb of Trades.)

 

18 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

No: he doesn't. 

Look:

XpgS1U.jpg

 

The text beside the cartouche name with the blank disks reads (as far as one can tell): “Cartouches in Tomb to the W. of Great Pyramid are different to the Suphis.”  (It's believed that what Vyse was referring to were cartouche names in the Tomb of Iymery, G 6020, the Tomb of Trades.)

He does. I misquoted the text which actually reads: [image of cartouche] "in Campbells Chamber".  Here:

image.png.9a1c076649446d6147813f952294d870.png

 

SC

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

What did I tell you folks - she wouldn't answer the question and I was right!  

Let's give it one more try.

Q: In British electoral law in 1807, was it illegal for an election candidate to pay someone for their vote? Yes or No?

(When you have answered the above, I guarantee you I will then respond to your subsequent question).

SC

 

And still you refuse to answer a very simply question. The board can draw their own conclusions for your refusal to answer it. Let's have one more try:

Q: In British electoral law in 1807, was it illegal for an election candidate to pay someone for their vote? Yes or No?

Yes or No?  Come on - it's a very simple question. (I promise I will repsond to your subsequent question when you give a straight answer).

Yes or No?

SC

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

22 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

And still you refuse to answer a very simply question. The board can draw their own conclusions for your refusal to answer it. Let's have one more try:

Q: In British electoral law in 1807, was it illegal for an election candidate to pay someone for their vote? Yes or No?

Yes or No?  Come on - it's a very simple question. (I promise I will repsond to your subsequent question when you give a straight answer).

Yes or No?

SC

I already answered your question.

Payments by election candidates to voters were not classed as illegal provided the relevant time limits were carefully observed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

I already answered your question.

Payments by election candidates to voters were not classed as illegal provided the relevant time limits were carefully observed.

You did NOT answer my simple question with a straight YES or NO as I had asked you to.  That is what you were asked.  And everyone can see that you did not answer YES or NO (just as I predicted you wouldn't).  And now, in claiming that you did answer my question, they can now see that you are lying about your answer. A simple YES or NO response is all you were asked to give. But I'll be fair - I'll give you one more chance to redeem the situation. Please answer my question:

Q: In British electoral law in 1807, was it illegal for an election candidate to pay someone for their vote? Yes or No?

A simple Yes or No is all I am asking for here. What's your answer?

YES or NO?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.