The Great Pyramid Hoax - Episode3 (Signs of the Crime)

[Kenemet]

Adding... I could find it easy to believe IF the signs had been completely inconsistent -- something random from the Napoleonic Expeditions.  Or absolute gibberish.  That'd make a very strong case.  

But proof of what later turned to be true?  No, that's not convincing.

[Alchopwn]

The "Great Pyramid Hoax" is itself the hoax.  Conspiratard material par excellence.

[Hanslune]

13 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

The "Great Pyramid Hoax" is itself the hoax.  Conspiratard material par excellence.

Yes, but it is all he's got. So, just like our good friend Cladking he spends his time going over and over the same material endlessly. It useless trivia at best.

[Scott Creighton]

16 hours ago, Kenemet said:

So you're saying he went in there and forged EVERY SINGLE INSCRIPTION in the chamber? 

SC: “Every single inscription”? No. That is not what I’m saying. According to Brewer/Allen--and verified (in a passing comment) by Vyse in his private account relating to Wellington’s Chamber (no mention of a cartouche tho), it seems quite clear that there WERE some marks already in these chambers.

 So yes, there were authentic marks in the chambers, just not, imo, any of the royal names.

 If you’re asking “Every Single” royal name?  Then yes – almost certainly every single one has been faked. Including all those royal names that two men exploring Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber, having had previous experience of discovering painted markings upon the walls of previously opened chambers, missed every single marking in Lady Arbuthnot’s – a chamber with more markings and more royal names than all of the others combined! But sure, of course – that doesn’t strike you as anything out of the ordinary at all.

Quote

K: I find it very hard to believe that he saw all those inscriptions in a "hidden cache" (what the heck kind of cache would have gang marks on it???) 

 SC: We know that crew names of work gangs were found painted onto the external blocks of the GP. We know also that Vyse found painted marks on the stones in the rubble piles to the north and south of the GP, some of which he presents in his published account. He even tells us in his private account that he blew up stone blocks at the north front of the GP. Khufu’s titulary (Khufu, Khnum-Khuf and Horus Mddw) is often found together. Given this, it is not inconceivable then that Vyse, while clearing away these rubble piles, found among the markings on the stones there, crew names. All Vyse needed to know was the name of Suphis/Khufu to make the connection and he did know this name. The rest was easy. He finds one set of crew name markings on one side of the pyramid, another set of crew markings on the opposite side. He replicates this distribution pattern within the newly opened chambers (for maximum effect). Job done. 

Quote

K: and just decided to fake those (which happen to be real gangs hauling stone for Khufu) ... rather than something more sensational that would make him a legend (a Biblical reference inscription)? 

SC: Transferring authentic ancient Egyptian inscriptions from one location to another would give a better appearance of authenticity. Certainly more sensible than just making up random inscriptions in another script that is not evidenced anywhere else at Giza – that is more likely to have drawn suspicion. 

Quote

K: Or just that one inscription which happens to be consistent with other real signs in the chamber?

SC: It’s consistent because it was likely copied from authentic AE inscriptions that were found outside the pyramid. (See above).  

Quote

K: And if it's the latter, then why did he forge another inscription consistent with the inscriptions already there?  That seems quite pointless 

SC: I presume you’re talking about the Khufu inscription in Campbell’s Chamber here?  I think it would have looked more than a little odd if all the other chambers had inscriptions of some kind or another within them, but Campbell’s had none.  (A bit how the small void chamber seems a bit odd with its lack of inscriptions - but then, Vyse didn;t get anywhere near that GP chamber). But if it’s proof of fraud, then the Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s offers us some of the best evidence, right from the Colonel’s private journal. 

The image below is from Vyse’s private journal entry of 16^th June 1837. Some questions for you:

 

1. Why do you think there are two cartouches labelled “in Campbell’s Chamber” which have two different disks – one with horizontal lines and one without?
2. Why do you think Vyse would leave such a contradiction on this page that could potentially cause him confusion later when writing up his book manuscript?
3. Why do you think the disk in the Khufu cartouche at the foot of the margin has an ‘X’ through its base, indicating “wrong” when this cartouche is, in fact, correct i.e. it is how we see the cartouche today? Why this contradiction?
4. Why is the disk in the bottom margin cartouche the only disk on the page with a double outline?
5. Why are there X marks above each of the disks that are “in Campbell’s Chamber”? (Note: these can’t be to cross-reference or lock together the 2 Khufu cartouches on the page since the label “in Campbell’s Chamber” already serves that function).
6. Why does Vyse draw a separate disk with 3 horizontal lines in the margin and then cross-reference this with a small vertical stroke with the disk in the bottom page cartouche?
7. What are the two vertical strokes ‘| |’ at the very bottom of the margin for?

 What’s your logical, consistent answer to all of the points above? (Hint: Vyse was editing something).

SC

Edited April 17, 2023 by Scott Creighton

[Kenemet]

So I decided to ask the meta-question here... "what does archaeological fraud look like?"

It turns out that there's a number of these frauds -- so many that there's a Wikipedia page on archaeological forgery.  Motives are generally financial, though sometimes it's done to prove a point, particularly a religious point.  While many are crude and done by amateurs, some are done by professional art restorers or even archaeologists themselves (Frank Hibben.) 

What does it look like?  Amateur frauds are often done in conjunction with a discovery, such as the opening of a significant tomb or site.  These usually stand out because of their crudeness or the forger's poor understanding of what they're working with.  Archaeologist and scholar Frank Hibben, fabricated Clovis material and then went on to fake the rather unconvincing Los Lunas Decalogue stone (Supposed to be Hebrew... but the Hebrews don't find the 10 Commandments to be special -they have 613 commandments- so it's clearly a blatant fraud.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_forgery

Forgers will generally create multiples to emphasize that the "finding" is "real" (the Ica stones, for instance, which is a cottage industry in fraud (along with the "human plus dinosaur tracks" of Paluxy).

So Vyse, who was not really studying Egyptian hieroglyphs before he hit Egypt, would have to locate authentic inscriptions for Khufu -- and know that the name was "Khufu" and not "Suphis", as was supposed.

The area around the pyramids is full of rubble and artifacts, but the problem that Vyse and others would have encountered is that much of what we see today was buried under sands.  Here's a photo of the area (Internet info says it was taken about 1859, so around the time Vyse died or about 20-25 years after his discovery)

So whatever was there that had Khufu's name on it was buried under fallen rubble plus a whopping lot of sand.  

"Foundation deposit cache" was mentioned somewhere in this thread, but the chances of his finding one of those is ... pretty danged slim.  Foundation caches are placed under tombs or temples, but there's not a lot of things in this type of cache.  Caches are brick-lined pits (no gang signs would be on a mud brick; nobody makes ten men haul a single mud brick) and consist of amulets (nobody puts gang signs on amulets) and sacred objects and sacrifices (none of which have or need the names of the crew of people to haul them around.)

So it couldn't have been from material at a foundation cache, and we know he didn't find any of the boat pits (where Khufu's name would have been found... but not the names of the work gangs.)

What about gang names on large stone blocks of temples or other structures around the pyramid?  After all, if they're hauling stones around the site, they'd have those names on blocks they dragged (a likely scenario).

So let's consider the idea that:  Vyse saw them on blocks of stone that had fallen down and got knocked over so that you could see the names (which hadn't gotten scraped off in all the hauling and shoving to get the blocks from the quarry to the site.)

• The signs would only be on big heavy things to move.  They're not put on little objects.
• The marks would have to be on something that no one else saw and was not recorded by the Napoleonic investigators (who did a pretty thorough job of recording things)
• The "fraud scenario" seems to presume that Vyse wandering around by himself and pushing over big blocks of stone by himself until he saw an inscription and then copying it and... putting the block back in place so nobody else would find it?
  • If it took a crew of men to move the stone block, how would Vyse have moved it?  These are ten-man blocks.
  • How many blocks of stone would you have to unearth (clear the sand away from) and turn over and examine before you found one of those names?  Vyse and others don't record him spending a lot of time wandering around alone and shoving rocks.
  • These marks would have been found later as the site was cleared to the extent that we see it today.  So where are these example-name blocks now? (EDITING NOTE:  Scott details some of this in his most recent answer to me, so I am revising this question)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_deposit

 

So... I do invite others to answer... what's the hallmarks (generally) of something being a fraud?

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Kenemet

[Scott Creighton]

2 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

So... I do invite others to answer... what's the hallmarks (generally) of something being a fraud?

This.

SC 

[Kenemet]

14 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: “Every single inscription”? No. That is not what I’m saying. According to Brewer/Allen--and verified (in a passing comment) by Vyse in his private account relating to Wellington’s Chamber (no mention of a cartouche tho), it seems quite clear that there WERE some marks already in these chambers.

 So yes, there were authentic marks in the chambers, just not, imo, any of the royal names.

Okay, so... anything without a cartouche is something you believe to be authentic?

Quote

 If you’re asking “Every Single” royal name?  Then yes – almost certainly every single one has been faked. Including all those royal names that two men exploring Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber, having had previous experience of discovering painted markings upon the walls of previously opened chambers, missed every single marking in Lady Arbuthnot’s – a chamber with more markings and more royal names than all of the others combined! But sure, of course – that doesn’t strike you as anything out of the ordinary at all.

No, it doesn't. 

Question:  Did they record every single mark in the other chambers on the same day they opened those chambers?  (I don't know, and haven't read up on this... just got back from a long trip and am sorting things out; dropped in here only for a brief time.)

(more later)

[Kenemet]

3 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

This.

SC 

No, I'm not sitting through some interminable video.  Give me some text (which you've kindly supplied in answer to my other questions.)  

Nor did I ask about Vyse.  I asked about the meta question, "what does fraud look like"?

[Scott Creighton]

Just now, Kenemet said:

No, I'm not sitting through some interminable video.  Give me some text (which you've kindly supplied in answer to my other questions.)  

Nor did I ask about Vyse.  I asked about the meta question, "what does fraud look like"?

It's not a video. But you'd have known that if you'd bothered to click.

SC

[Scott Creighton]

2 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I asked about the meta question, "what does fraud look like"?

And I answered. The issue is about Vyse. Please stay on topic.

Thanks.

SC

[Scott Creighton]

59 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Okay, so... anything without a cartouche is something you believe to be authentic?

SC: That's not what I said.  The number signs, for example, in Campbell's are other questionable signs since they are contradictory to:

a) All other text in those chambers which are old hieratic.

b) The (presumed) numbers in the small shaft 'chamber' (believed also to be hieratic).

There are probably others but here's the bottom line - we won't know which are genuine and which aren't until Egyptology gets its erse in gear and does some proper science in those chambers.

Quote

SC: ...that doesn’t strike you as anything out of the ordinary at all. 

K: No, it doesn't. 

SC: Then, no disrespect, but you're simply not paying attention. Or just don't want to. Those TWO MEN (Vyse and Raven) would have had every reason to expect to find markings upon the walls of Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber. They measured the place, saw that its walls were different to the chambers below and yet no painted markings are reported from this inspection. Not a single one (from over a hundred markings, many of them large and bold). They were (ahem) 'found' 3 days later during a second inspection.

Quote

Question:  Did they record every single mark in the other chambers on the same day they opened those chambers?  (I don't know, and haven't read up on this... just got back from a long trip and am sorting things out; dropped in here only for a brief time.)

SC: Recorded on the day, no (tho Khufu cartouche is on May 27th page of Vyse's private journal - without lines in the disk). Discovery of markings from each of the other chambers reported on the day of each chamber's opening? Yes - but only in Vyse's published account.

According to Vyse's PUBLISHED account, he found quarry-marks in all of the other chambers on the day each chamber was opened (although his private journal contradicts this. Nelson's, for example, the private journal says nothing about finding any markings upon the walls when the chamber was first opened - again they were mentioned - in passing, but there's no specific mention of any discovery - days later).

Now - care to answer my query above?

SC

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

Following on from my post yesterday (here) concerning the exploration of Lady Arbuthnot’s chamber by Vyse and Raven on 6^th of May 1837, some further comments. It has been speculated here on UM and elsewhere over the years, that the two men (Vyse and Raven) had but the briefest of looks around Lady Arbuthnot’s chamber after it had finally been breached. The inference here is that neither Vyse or Raven made a full and proper exploration of Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber after it had been blasted open (after weeks of effort) and, consequently, entirely missed the profusion of quarry marks upon the chamber’s walls.

Let’s now consider the likelihood of such a lacklustre exploration by Vyse and Raven of the newly opened chamber.

1. Every other chamber Vyse blasted open was fully explored by him (and others) on the day of its opening. Even if planning a trip to Cairo later that day, it seems unlikely that Vyse would have treated Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber any differently.
2. Vyse, in his published account, specifically tells us that he and Mr Raven entered and explored LA’s chamber on 6th May, noting that its walls were slightly different from the chambers below, the workmanship was inferior and that they took the time to make measurements of the chamber. (Taking Vyse at his word here, then clearly, this was not a quick ‘pop your head through the hole’ look around).
3. If, however, this inspection never actually occurred on this 6^th May date (and Vyse merely laced his published narrative with a fictional account of an exploration on this date along with Mr Raven), then this would demonstrate that Vyse wasn’t being honest in his account. And if he’s not being honest here, why should anyone accept anything he tells us elsewhere in his published work? He either didn’t make the detailed inspection of the chamber on May 6th described in his published account or he did make that inspection (with Mr Raven) on this date. If he didn’t make the inspection on this date as claimed, then he lied. If he did make the inspection as described in the published account, then there needs to be a logical, reasonable and rational explanation as to how two men apparently missed all of the painted wall markings (markings that they would surely have been anticipating having allegedly found similar in the two chambers previously opened). Whichever way we look at this, Vyse’s narrative simply falls down, leaving some not insignificant questions in its wake.
4. It is known that Vyse wanted to make the important discovery of Khufu’s true burial (and thus any treasure that would likely be in-situ with it). It stands to reason, therefore, that it would have been vital that the colonel explore the chamber thoroughly the moment it had been breached. The very last thing the British explorer (or any explorer) would have wanted, was for some Jack-the-lad or hooray Henry to come along and make the momentous discovery (Khufu’s true burial) and lay claim to it before Vyse. The colonel would have well understood that he had to be first into the chamber to ensure that any important discovery that perhaps lay therein, would forever be his discovery.
5. The Colonel was about to depart to Cairo for a couple of days, so it would have been imperative for him to know exactly what lay within the chamber (or not) before his departure in order that he could know and organise the appropriate level of security the open chamber (and any important discoveries therein) might have needed during his absence. He's hardly going to nip off to Cairo for a couple of days not knowing what, if anything, was lying in the open chamber that might have needed protection. Put simply - the longer Vyse held off checking the chamber thoroughly for himself, the more likely any important discovery (and potential plunder) would have been made by someone else. (And given Vyse considered the painted wall markings “were of great importance”, he wouldn’t have wanted anyone discovering these either before he had).
6. Having spent a considerable amount of his own personal fortune on these explorations, it is simply unrealistic to think that Vyse would ever have entertained even the slightest possibility that, in not thoroughly checking the chamber himself before anyone else had the chance, his great prize of an important discovery could get snatched away from him by some interloper. It is simply inconceivable that the colonel would ever have entertained even the remotest possibility of such a disaster befalling him and, therefore, would have taken all practical measures to ensure that it didn’t i.e., he would have made a thorough exploration of Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber himself before departing for Cairo, then putting in place any security measures he considered appropriate.
7. Upon his return from Cairo on 8^th May, several other people are known to have gone into the Great Pyramid (some almost certainly into Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber), and they did so while Vyse, due to illness, remained behind at his encampment - not exactly the actions of a man who has yet to make his own exploration of this chamber in the hopes of being the first to make an important discovery within it. All of which indicates that Vyse had already been in the chamber and had searched it thoroughly. Thereafter, he knew no one was ever going to discover anything he hadn’t already discovered, and certainly not the true burial or treasure of Khufu.

So yes – I think we can be as near to certainty as we can that Vyse and Raven did explore this chamber thoroughly on 6^th May 1837. Given this, then we must ask the question again – why is there no report of any discovery of any painted wall markings from this chamber on this day when two men who whould have been primed to expect such an important discovery and having evidently looked at the chamber walls?. With identical lighting used in the chambers below where they apparently had no problem finding the painted marks in the 2 previous chambers (that had much fewer painted marks), two men found not a single painted marking upon any wall of this chamber which has over a hundred painted markings, many large and bold. It makes little sense that no report of this important discovery was made on this day but only three days later on the 9th May (which Vyse has given wrongly in a number of places as the opening date for this chamber - and then subsequently changed back again to 6th May).

Is there a corollary with this three day opening date 'mistake' and the three day gap in finding the painted marks in this chamber?

Anyone here care to explain this in a logical, reasonable and rational manner?

More later.

SC

Edited April 18, 2023 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

Following on from my previous post.

The Attestation Witnesses

On 19^th May, 1837, Colonel Vyse assembled a group of men, including himself, to attest to the accuracy of Mr Hill’s facsimile drawings of the markings found upon the walls of the chambers thus far opened within the Great Pyramid. The witnesses were as follows:

Sir Robert K. Arbuthnot

Colonel Howard Vyse

Joseph Cartwright Brettell

Henry Raven

Mr Hill’s name is also on each of the sheets as ‘Drawn by J.R. Hill”

Now, assuming Colonel Vyse had conducted his operations at Giza with complete honesty and transparency and that everything was above board there would be no reason why he would not have informed each of these witnesses upon meeting them, the state of his discoveries at the time of their first meeting. Let’s go through each of these.

May 6^th (afternoon). Vyse and Mr Raven open and explore Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber.

May 6^th (evening). Colonel Vyse dined with Mr Brettell. Earlier that afternoon he had opened and explored Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber. There would have been little reason for Vyse not to have shared his triumphant news with Mr Brettell as they dined that evening.

May 7^th (afternoon). Colonel Vyse calls upon Colonel Campbell whereupon he first meets Sir Robert and Lady Arbuthnot. Again, there would have been little reason for the colonel not to have shared the news of the opening of Lady Arbuthnot’s chamber with Colonel Campbell and the Arbuthnots.

May 7^th (evening). Colonel Vyse is again dining with Mr Brettell. If he forgot to mention his discovery of Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber the previous day, now was a second chance to tell Mr Brettell of his discovery of 6^th May.

May 8^th (afternoon). Vyse calls upon the Arbuthnots again at Colonel Campbell’s. Again, had he forgot to tell them of his momentous discovery 2 days earlier, he could have mentioned it here. And why wouldn’t he?

May 8^th (afternoon). The colonel and Mr Hill journey back from Cairo to Giza. If he hadn’t already told Mr Hill (at his hotel) that Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber had been opened 2 days previous on May 6^th, now was a perfect time during their 3-hour trip. Mr Hill was, after all, one of Vyse’s key men so there would be no reason whatsoever to withhold this fact from him.

May 9^th (morning). Raven and Hill go into the pyramid (presumably Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber). Vyse tells us that he should have gone too but stayed behind due to illness.

May 9^th (evening). The Arbuthnots arrive along with Lady Arbuthnot’s brother, Mr Fitzgerald.

May 9^th (evening). Mr Hill goes up to copy inscription in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber (with inkpad in a sack) so presumably this is the Chamber’s Dedication Inscription he is off to paint). Did they all just assume the date was 9^th May? Did Vyse not check his diary at that moment to ensure the date was correct? Did the Arbuthnot’s, witnessing the inscription, not realise the date was incorrect and query it at this time?

May 10^th (morning). The Arbuthnots go to explore the Great Pyramid (presumably to visit Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber which has just been dedicated to Sir Robert’s wife, Lady Anne Arbuthnot). They almost certainly would have seen Mr Hill’s Dedication Inscription on the wall with its May 9^th date. However, they would almost certainly have also known that the chamber had in fact been opened on 6^th May (assuming Vyse had been open and honest about his discoveries – why shouldn’t he be?)  If they knew the chamber’s opening date was 3 days previous on 6^th May (and there’s no reason why they wouldn’t have known this at this time), then they almost certainly would have questioned Vyse as to why May 9^th had been painted onto the chamber wall: “Since you have painted the actual opening dates onto the walls of the other chambers, we wondered Colonel Vyse, why it is not 6^th May painted onto the wall of the new chamber?”

May 19^th. All of the witnesses at Vyse’s Attestation meeting would almost certainly have known that Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber had been opened on May 6^th (there’s no reason why, had Vyse been open and honest about his discoveries, they would not have known/believed this).

And so, we are expected to believe that in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber, upon observing the dedication inscription with its incorrect May 9^th date, that not a single one of these five men realised it was wrong. And they each had plenty of time to think about this date as Vyse presented them with facsimile after facsimile from Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber, each stating “opened 9^th of May”. Five men seeing the date ‘9th May’ seven times each in regards to this chamber and not one of them seems to have realised that the May 9^th date was wrong, even though all of them should have known the correct date was 6^th May. We are to believe that they all, remarkably, forgot the correct date, that none of them could actually work events backwards to reach the correct date.

Mr Brettell didn’t remember that he had first heard the chamber’s opening date when he had been having dinner with Vyse in Cairo some two weeks earlier – which would have made it 6^th May and not 9^th May. He seemingly didn’t recall that event.

Sir Robert didn’t remember that he had first heard of the chamber’s opening date when he and Lady Arbuthnot were at Colonel Campbell’s home some two weeks earlier – which would have made it 6^th May and not 9^th May. He seemingly didn’t recall that event.

Mr Hill didn’t remember that he had been told the chamber’s opening date by the Colonel when he had been in Cairo some two weeks earlier, or when journeying with him afterwards back to Giza - which would have made it 6^th May and not 9^th May. He seemingly didn’t recall that event.

Vyse himself appears to have forgotten that his meeting with Brettel and the Arbuthnots (when he would surely have informed them of his discoveries – why wouldn’t he?) was when he had been in Cairo and not when he returned to Giza.

Vyse, when preparing the dedication inscription for Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber (he was hardly going to leave the text of this to Mr Hill), gives Mr Hill the correct date of May 6^th but, incredibly, by the time Mr Hill has climbed up to Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber to paint the date upon the wall, he now thinks the date the chamber had been opened was that very day i.e. 9^th May.

And not a single person during that two week spell noticed Mr Hill's (ahem) 'mistake', not one of them could work the date back to reach the correct 6th May date. 

Nope. Not buying it.

More later.

SC

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

It has oft been asserted by the Vyse apologists that the anomalous date of May 9^th within the dedication inscription of Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber was the result of a simple mistake made by Mr Hill. Let’s now consider that possibility.

The actual chamber inscription as painted by Mr Hill in May 1837.

Against this:

The chamber inscription as presented in Colonel Vyse’s published account of 1840. The opening date has been altered to read ‘May 6^th’ (with no explanation).

So, if a mistake was made with this date, what was the source of the mistake?

There are realistically only 2 possible candidates: Colonel Vyse or Mr Hill. This was Vyse’s discovery and the prerogative for naming and dedicating each chamber was his. Mr Hill would certainly not have been unilaterally permitted to decide upon the inscription text for the newly opened chamber—this would have been the responsibility of Colonel Vyse although Mr Hill did the actual painting of the date onto the chamber wall. But did Vyse give Hill a wrong date or did Hill get it wrong all by himself?

From his private journal Colonel Vyse was in the company of the Arbuthnots, Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Hill when the inscription text to place in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber had been decided and given to Mr Hill (almost certainly from Vyse). Vyse may even have sought the text's approval from the Arbuthnot’s before sending Mr Hill off to paint the inscription.

If Colonel Vyse had instructed Mr Hill at that moment to paint May 9^th upon the chamber wall then, almost certainly Mr Hill (and possibly even the Arbuthnots) would have corrected him—they would have surely known that the chamber’s opening date had not occurred that very day but rather, three days earlier (when Vyse had told them about it when he met them in Cairo) and would almost certainly have corrected the colonel. "May 9th, colonel Vyse? But that's today's date! The chamber was opened three days ago." Mr Hill informs Vyse.  "Yes, Mr Hill's correct Colonel," Sir robert Arbuthnot adds.

Vyse may then have consulted his private journal and realised that Mr Hill (and maybe also the Arbuthnots) were quite right—the chamber’s opening date had actually occurred not that very day, but rather, three days earlier. "How silly of me!" the colonel laughs.

And so Vyse corrects his instruction to Mr Hill who then sets off to the Great Pyramid with the “inkpad in the sack” to paint the dedication inscription onto the chamber wall.  And yet, when Mr Hill sets about his painting task, for some unfathomable reason, (when he absolutely would have known better) he somehow forgets that the chamber had not been opened three days earlier but now thinks it had been opened that very day, and thus incorrectly paints the date of May 9^th onto the wall instead of May 6^th.

That is essentially the mistake scenario we are being asked by the Vyse apologists to believe occurred (or something very much along those lines). Uh-huh.

Some other pertinent points to consider:

1. Mr Hill, whom Vyse describes as “a very intelligent person,” appears throughout Vyse’s operations at Giza to have been a thoroughly dependable man, having made no mistakes of any kind with the dedication inscriptions in any of the other chambers. He knew that the dates placed in the other chambers were their ‘opening dates’ and not the painting of the inscription date. This would have been no different for Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber – he would have been sent by Vyse to paint the Chamber’s opening date within the dedication inscription.
2. Colonel Vyse has never claimed anywhere that Mr Hill made a mistake with the date in this inscription (contrary to his routinely alerting his readers to documentary mistakes made by other authors in other source material throughout his book, including misreported dates).
3. Even when Vyse altered this inscription for his published book to read ‘May 6^th’, he gave no indication that a change had been made by him nor why he felt the change was necessary.  There is certainly no mention in this section of the colonel’s book that Mr Hill had painted an incorrect date upon the wall, something we might reasonably have expected to find (at least in a footnote) here. Indeed, the very lack of any explanation here by Vyse for this alteration could be explained by the colonel’s reluctance to falsely implicate Mr Hill for painting a date that Vyse himself had instructed Mr Hill to make. As such, the least said on the matter, the better.
4. This was an important piece of text that Mr Hill was placing on this wall—the chamber’s dedication inscription! Is it realistic to believe that he could get something so important so wrong?
5. If Hill had been using stencils for his inscriptions (not unlikely), then the very fact that a “9,” when inverted, can become a “6” would have made it all the more likely that he would have been extra careful with this particular number, ensuring that he had the stencil the desired way up before painting the number.
6. As noted, if Hill had made a genuine mistake with this date, why wasn't it corrected at the time? If this “mistake” was important enough for Vyse to “correct” for his book some 2 years or so later, then why didn't he have the original inscription corrected immediately? As shown in the post above, there were certainly several others around who knew the correct opening date of this chamber because they had either been in attendance when the chamber was opened or whom Vyse had subsequently told (had he been open and upfront about his discoveries). First and foremost, in this regard, would have been Mr Hill himself. Why didn’t he say anything? And Mr Perring almost certainly knew the true date, was also making his own drawings from this chamber and would almost certainly have seen the LA chamber inscription and known the date therein was incorrect – why didn’t Perring say anything? And what of the Arbuthnots who visited the Great Pyramid on 10^th May?
7. But no one – not Vyse, Hill, Raven, Perring, Brettell, Mash, the Arbuthnots or anyone else apparently noticed the mistake in the date of this inscription when it is a near certainty that (had Vyse been open and honest with everyone), they would have known the true date was 6^th May. It seems that some (Vyse’s small inner circle) knew the true date and kept it quiet. Others seem to have been told and believed a false date (May 9^th) as part of Vyse’s plan to close the 3-day gap between the time the chamber had been opened and the painted marks were (ahem) ‘discovered’.

But alas, in the words of Robert Burns:

“The best laid plans o’ mice and men, gang aft agley”

or, in the words of Walter Scott:

“O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”

Vyse got away with his ruse for the best part of 200 years. Like all fraudsters, he tried as best he could to cover his tracks but still he made errors—some forced, some unforced. In 1837, he simply could not have imagined a world where an investigator could have the walls of Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber, Mr Hill’s facsimile drawings, Mr Perring's surveys, his own published books and private journal sitting on their lap, allowing them to piece it all together and see the full picture of Vyse’s attempted fraud. Just as new science such as DNA profiling has caught criminals decades later who would otherwise have escaped justice, the advent of modern information systems is what has finally caught up with Colonel Vyse and found him out.

SC

Edited April 20, 2023 by Scott Creighton

[Trelane]

This is punching at air if I've ever seen it.

He didn't fake anything. Get over it.

[Scott Creighton]

25 minutes ago, Trelane said:

He didn't fake anything. Get over it.

I have no doubt you believe that. But here we deal in evidence not beliefs. I'm sure the critical thinking minds here await the proof of your assertion. The floor is yours.

SC 

[Trelane]

8 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

I have no doubt you believe that. But here we deal in evidence not beliefs. I'm sure the critical thinking minds here await the proof of your assertion. The floor is yours.

SC 

Your evidence has been disproved by others in this thread. Your decision to disagree and blather on for pages is irrelevant.  

[Scott Creighton]

56 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Your evidence has been disproved by others in this thread. Your decision to disagree and blather on for pages is irrelevant.  

Providing some background context to my point of view is not "blather". Perhaps that's where you're going wrong?

Now, I've had a look - couldn't find anything in the thread to back up what you are claiming here.  Admittedly, I may well have missed these important debunking posts you imply are here in this thread so if you could point me to the them that would be helpful so I can consider them and put myself right.  It would be helpful also if you could present the evidence that proves your own assertion. That would be helpful too, thanks. I'm sure the critical thinking among us would like to see this to assess just how solid your own case is. Hopefully that's not too much to ask of you?  

SC

Edited April 20, 2023 by Scott Creighton

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Providing some background context to my point of view is not "blather". Perhaps that's where you're going wrong?

Now, I've had a look - couldn't find anything in the thread to back up what you are claiming here.  Admittedly, I may well have missed these important debunking posts you imply are here in this thread so if you could point me to the them that would be helpful so I can consider them and put myself right.  It would be helpful also if you could present the evidence that proves your own assertion. That would be helpful too, thanks. I'm sure the critical thinking among us would like to see this to assess just how solid your own case is. Hopefully that's not too much to ask of you?  

SC

Context? Sure, in your first couple of posts. Then it turns to posting a lot of the same stuff over and over again. That's blathering.

[Scott Creighton]

6 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Context? Sure, in your first couple of posts. Then it turns to posting a lot of the same stuff over and over again. That's blathering.

 

Okay - you think I'm "blathering". That's your opinion. Good - you can keep your opinion.

Now - stop evading my questions.

I've had a look - couldn't find anything in the thread to back up what you are claiming here.  Admittedly, I may well have missed these important debunking posts you imply are here in this thread so if you could point me to the them that would be helpful so I can consider them and put myself right.  It would be helpful also if you could present the evidence that proves your own assertion. That would be helpful too, thanks. I'm sure the critical thinking among us would like to see this to assess just how solid your own case is. Hopefully that's not too much to ask of you?   

You don't get a free pass here.  Critical minds are curious. You said it's there - so show us.

Failing to do so simply means you have nothing and are just "blathering". Don't be shy now.

SC

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Scott Creighton

[Trelane]

2 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

 

Okay - you think I'm "blathering". That's your opinion. Good - you can keep your opinion.

Now - stop evading my questions.

I've had a look - couldn't find anything in the thread to back up what you are claiming here.  Admittedly, I may well have missed these important debunking posts you imply are here in this thread so if you could point me to the them that would be helpful so I can consider them and put myself right.  It would be helpful also if you could present the evidence that proves your own assertion. That would be helpful too, thanks. I'm sure the critical thinking among us would like to see this to assess just how solid your own case is. Hopefully that's not too much to ask of you?   

You don't get a free pass here.  Critical minds are curious. You said it's there - so show us.

Failing to do so simply means you have nothing and are just "blathering". Don't be shy now.

SC

 

No, no. I'm not one of these rabid AE types.  These threads are more casual reading. If you're too stubborn or lazy to look back, don't expect me to do your heavy lifting. Anyway, if all this 'stuff' you keep posting is so compelling why haven't you published a book or contacted a magazine or newspaper? Spinning your tires in these forums probably isn't the best way to get your side of the story out.

You do get worked up when people call you on this nonsense though. Very entertaining.

[Scott Creighton]

10 minutes ago, Trelane said:

No, no. I'm not one of these rabid AE types.  These threads are more casual reading. If you're too stubborn or lazy to look back, don't expect me to do your heavy lifting. Anyway, if all this 'stuff' you keep posting is so compelling why haven't you published a book or contacted a magazine or newspaper? Spinning your tires in these forums probably isn't the best way to get your side of the story out.

You do get worked up when people call you on this nonsense though. Very entertaining.

Why haven’t I published a book?

Seriously--you really need to do better research. Or just maybe watch the videos in the OP to the very end. Then you’d perhaps have something of a clue.

And so, when pressed to come up with this great debunking that you claim has occurred within this thread, you come up with the cubed root of eff all. You try to shirk your repsonsibility. Well, the thinking among us know that if what you said actually held any water, then you’d have it all over your replies to me and would be ramming this evidence down my throat just to shut me up. That you’re now being coy with this evidence tells me (and I’m sure most other thinking types) that you’re talking through a hole—and it’s not your mouth.

You’re just a mouthy time-waster who can't back up their claims. I have little time for time-wasters. You had your chance. Welcome to my ignore list.

SC

Edited April 20, 2023 by Scott Creighton

[Trelane]

17 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Why haven’t I published a book?

Seriously--you really need to do better research. Or just maybe watch the videos in the OP to the very end. Then you’d perhaps have something of a clue.

And so, when pressed to come up with this great debunking that you claim has occurred within this thread, you come up with the cubed root of eff all. You try to shirk your repsonsibility. Well, the thinking among us know that if what you said actually held any water, then you’d have it all over your replies to me and would be ramming this evidence down my throat just to shut me up. That you’re now being coy with this evidence tells me (and I’m sure most other thinking types) that you’re talking through a hole—and it’s not your mouth.

You’re just a mouthy time-waster who can't back up their claims. I have little time for time-wasters. You had your chance. Welcome to my ignore list.

SC

As a rule, I don't watch linked videos.  Like I said, this is more casual reading for me. I didn't debunk you; others have. As a published author I thought you might have a better grasp on comprehension.  @Thanos5150 @Kenemetand @Windowpaneall countered your position quite succinctly. If you disagree, that's equally fine. Their answers make better sense than your conspiracy theory.

 

[kborissov]

Very good discussion. Scott please keep posting. I am interested I your theory! 
Thanks

[Scott Creighton]

Hey UM,

Just when you all thought I'd gone away!

The text extract below is from Colonel Vyse’s private journal from 27^th May 1837, the day he first entered and explored Campbell’s Chamber.  This text shows, imo, that Vyse had markings that were about to be placed into the chamber.

Alternative reading might also be:

It has been suggested that where I have the phrase “to inscribe over any” should be read as “the marks were very”.  The key word difference here is the word “inscribe”.  Should this really be read as “marks” as suggested?  I strongly doubt it as the images below should hopefully demonstrate.

 

 

The lower word (image above) appears to have a different first and last letter and appears also to have a letter ‘i’ in the middle. The word, imo, is “inscribe”. Thus, on this page of Vyse’s private journal we have:

 “…Cartouche to inscribe over any plain…”

The phrase “to inscribe” is, obviously, future tense – it is something that is yet to be done.  It is not “inscribed” – past tense.

Now, I don’t doubt for a moment that the committed Vyse apologists here and elsewhere will prefer to interpret this word as “marks” and not as “inscribe”.   But I leave this evidence here for the silent majority of undecided to come to their own informed opinion on it.

SC

Edited April 23, 2023 by Scott Creighton