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

[Scott Creighton]

18 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Then what, exactly, was the purpose of the forgery?  Schoolboy prank?  His version of "Kilroy was here"?  Sudden attack of reincarnation fever?  Others left graffiti, so why in the heck would he forge a labor gang sign?  Why not something more significant?

As far as I can tell, he got exactly nothing from it.  

From The Great Pyramid Hoax:

Quote

The questions have to be asked: Why would Vyse have wanted to perpetrate a hoax of this nature within the Great Pyramid, and what, if anything, would he have gained by so doing?

See pp. 41-48

SC

 

[Windowpane]

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

From The Great Pyramid Hoax:

See pp. 41-48

SC

 

Regrettably, this extract is more discursive than informative.  Perhaps you would allow me to quote the Ch.4 summary:

Quote

Vyse tells us on numerous occasions in his published work that he wanted to make an important discovery during his operations at Giza, possibly even finding the true burial chamber of Suphis/Khufu within the Great Pyramid. Such a discovery would have ensured that his name would have pride of place in world history books. Vyse specifically states that finding a cartouche of an Egyptian king within the pyramids might help to date the constructions. Given his clear and strong religious beliefs, Vyse may well have wished to ensure that a cartouche was “discovered” within the Great Pyramid that allowed the structure to be dated with a known king from a known historical period; that is, to a time that did not predate Ussher’s date of 4004 BCE for the Creation.

The whole question of Vyse and his "motivation" has been previously discussed elsewhere ad infinitum: one example should suffice to make the point.

To repeat: Vyse wanted to make a discovery.

He didn't want to make a forgery.  If he had been in a position where he knew enough to make a forgery, that knowledge alone - as has been said many times before (although the point seems to have passed some readers by) - would have placed him in the leading echelon of scholars, and would have assured him of all the fame he could handle.

But, if he had wanted fame, why did he advance money to Sir William Gell to publish a book on Roman topography?  Why bother to pay for the publication of Perring's book?  These were both works of scholarship: and, because of his love of archaeology (antiquarianism as it was then known), he was willing to support them.  He might have obtained private satisfaction from such gestures: but little in the shape of fame.  And, on his return to England, he largely withdrew into quiet private life: he didn't seek adulation and acclaim.  

Moreover, if he had wanted to make a forgery, surely we could expect to find earlier instances of shady practice?  Why, then, when he was excavating at the site of a villa belonging to the family of the Emperor Augustus in Italy, did he not produce some potsherds or tiles bearing, say, the name of Tiberius, about whose ownership of the villa there was apparently some question?  This might have aroused the interest of contemporary historians.  But it does not seem to have occurred to Vyse to do anything of the sort ...  How strange, given what he now stands accused of in "Hoax" and other such works.

Edited March 24 by Windowpane
spelling

[Kenemet]

4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

From The Great Pyramid Hoax:

See pp. 41-48

SC

 

If you have a point to make, please make the point.  I am interested in discussions, not in references to a series of pages in a book.  

This seems to be a very pointless attempt to hang an impossible graffiti (for a rather senseless purpose) onto someone simply for the excitement of writing a long book about an idea that appears to be completely implausible.

[Thanos5150]

On 3/22/2023 at 1:37 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Baffling. Literally the exact opposite is true. Sitchin notes the other cartouches extensively showing several of Perring's drawings including most of those you picture and then some. See Stairway to Heaven ch XIII "Forging the Pharaoh's Name". Merits notwithstanding, the argument is that there is just one Khufu cartouche out of many not of course that it is the "only cartouche".   

Lol. 

Anyhoo, the notion of there being only "one cartouche" came from hyperbolic comments long after the fact from the likes of Hancock and others who repeated the idea claiming "this one cartouche is the only evidence linking the Great Pyramid to Khufu [and by extension the DE]" and the like. Ironically, one of the biggest contributing factors in perpetuating this myth are those arguing against it who they themselves only focused on this one cartouche. In forums it is a form of group psychosis. Very strange. 

Endorsements for Crieghton's book:

Bauval:

Egyptologists consider the ochre-painted Khufu cartouche in the Great Pyramid as the ultimate proof that this pyramid belongs to the Fourth Dynasty pharaoh Khufu. But much controversy surrounds its authenticity. If the Khufu cartouche is indeed a hoax, then the implications are tremendous.

Hancock:

A powerfully-argued demolition of the 'facts' on which Egyptologists base their claim that the Great Pyramid was built by the Fourth Dynasty pharaoh Khufu. Scott Creighton's excellent new book The Great Pyramid Hoax is a first-class forensic investigation that Egyptologists should really be paying a great deal of attention to, because it pulls the rug of their chronology right out from under their feet.

They say this and yet they all, including Scott, talk from both sides of their mouth when needed: HERE.

At any rate, questioning the implications and meaning of the royal names in G1 has a long history well before Sitchin all the way back to the Egyptologists of the day. In alternative circles, Pyramid Odyssey, William Fix published just several years before Sitchin's Stairway to Heaven, has a whole chapter devoted to it: The Marks in the Hidden Chambers which the arguments largely stem from the the fact all of the different cartouches/names of Khufu are found. "Tombs and tombs only"? Yeah, this idea is old too. 

[Scott Creighton]

Quote

Trelane: “I always wondered what the motivation was/is to label Vyse's work as a fraud.” from here.

WP: In Creighton's case, Vyse's alleged forgery appears to have been inspired by a need to show that the pyramids were supposedly built far earlier than the time of Khufu, as “recovery vaults” to ensure the rebirth of civilization after a global cataclysm. from here.

SC: Not so.  My view is simply that the “time of Khufu” (i.e. Khufu himself) was much earlier than the ca.2,500 BC timeline that Egyptologists believe. If you read what I write and not what you think I write, then you’d have more of a clue. Vyse’s alleged forgery is just that – an alleged forgery. (Are you paying attention here, Lee? No one's speaking from both sides of their mouth - these are not mutually exclusive positions.).  I just don’t like it when people try to pull the wool over my eyes in any walk of life and if they try it, I’ll call them out on it. Simple as that. Yes, even if it’s a ‘cold case’ from history, Lee.  The evidence that they have been faked (see below) is just too overwhelming. So, my prosecution of Vyse has nothing to do with my belief in who built the GP, or when. In fact, from the back cover of my most recent book, The Great Pyramid Void Enigma:

Quote

“Reveals how the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu . . .” and later, “. . . the author reveals how the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu. . .” (I am assuming here that Suphis/Khufu is the Saurid of the AE Saurid Legend – imo, there is good reasons for taking this view).

SC: I even propose that Khufu’s mom (Hetepheres I) was removed from her temporary burial at Giza (along with many other ancestors of Khufu) and re-interred within the Big Void chamber after it was completed. Now, if it hasn’t dawned on you yet, you should see that I’m actually arguing here that Saurid/Suphis/Khufi did build the GP (just not for the reason Egyptology tells us and, imo, not in the era Egyptology believes it was built – which are entirely different questions). So, just because I believe that Saurid/Khufu built the GP, does not mean I have to accept that the builders created these painted markings. The evidence of fakery of the markings is just too much for me to accept them as genuine (see below).

Quote

WP: So, although he dismisses much of Sitchin's case as "badly researched," Creighton's own case still requires the forgery proposal to be shown as valid.

SC: Says who? You? Here’s some BREAKING NEWS for you: YOU don’t get to be judge and jury over whether my case against Vyse is valid or not – so get down from your perch and give yourself a reality check. The evidence I present is what speaks to the validity of my case, not your little ivory tower pronouncements. And the evidence I present speaks very loudly indeed of a hoax having been perpetrated. Let me summarise just some of the highlights here for you:

• 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.
• A witness from the time stated that “Faint marks were repainted, some were new”
• There is no mention in Vyse’s private journal of a ‘discovery’ of markings in LA’s Chamber.
• 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).

ALL of the above are FACTS and are backed up by the material evidence that exists from the time that anyone can check for themselves. There is much, much more evidence that supports the fraud case documented in my books – there’s just too much to document in my videos which I wanted to keep reasonably short. Now, if you want to turn a blind eye to it all, that’s absolutely your choice but, imo, you’d simply be deceiving yourself. Which is perfectly fine, if that’s what you want to do. Just don’t expect anyone with a critical mind to join you in your blinkered delusion.

Quote

WP: Consequently, Creighton has had recourse to any number of perfectly extraordinary scenarios - including the famous "secret cache", inspired by Alford - to explain and illustrate Vyse's supposed wrongdoing. 

SC: Ah - the “secret cache” (i.e. the original source markings Vyse almost certainly found and kept secret). I wondered when you’d bring up that old trope.  You seem to be of the strange view that unless this original source is found, then there is no case to answer, that Vyse is in the clear.  Well bollox to that!  I’ve told you this repeatedly and you refuse to listen - that’s like saying if someone shoots a person in the street and manages to dispose of the shotgun, then without the primary piece of evidence (i.e. the shotgun), then the shooter can’t be prosecuted for their crime.  Your bizarre view is essentially arguing that we cannot consider all the other evidence that clearly shows a shooting did, in fact, occur.  Your view would have us ignoring the gunshot wound, the bullets, the empty shell casings, the gun residue, the eyewitness accounts etc. The shooter would get off Scot free because the primary piece of evidence was never recovered and all the other evidence should, in your bizarre view, simply be ignored.

We may not have the original source markings that Vyse almost certainly would have found somewhere (I suggest in the rubble piles of the northern and southern sides of the GP), but there is evidence aplenty from other sources that points to him having perpetrated a fraud (see the list above for starters, and then read all the other evidence in my books). Trying to insist that I need to find the original cache Vyse used is simply a tactical ploy you use to absolve yourself of ever having to address any of the evidence against Vyse and any critical thinking person can see right through it.

Furthermore, by insisting that I must produce the original cache of signs that Vyse copied into the chambers before my case can be considered is effectively holding me to a higher standard of proof than you hold yourself.  You insist that the granite box in these early pyramids were sarcophagi and that they held the king’s mummified body (the primary evidence).  But no mummified king (no primary evidence) has ever been found in these early pyramids. Yet, even without your primary evidence, you insist these stone boxes were sarcophagi for kings (even when actual evidence was found to show that what they actually contained, was earth and bull bones). Do you not see your double-standards here, your utter hypocrisy?

Further still, as Hans has shown (as has yourself elsewhere), that these crew names have been found upon stones all over Giza. So, it’s not impossible or unreasonable to consider that Vyse could have found others.

Quote

WP: But, as pointed out earlier in this thread, little of what Creighton has to say makes any sense ...

Sure. It makes little sense – to you.  Conveniently so.

Quote

 

WP: To make the point again for any new readers who might not already have come across it: the crew-marks (crews or gangs were known as "aperu") in the various relieving chambers were most likely placed there as part of AE labour organisation methodology.   As early as 1838, Lepsius discerned that the distribution of aper marks was somehow significant.

In the early 20th century, his pupil, Sethe, made more progress with this line of enquiry.  In the early 1990s, Ann Macy Roth ("Phyles of the Old Kingdom" explained the reasoning behind the distribution of aper marks, and how they indicated that certain work-crews oversaw certain sections of the relieving chambers.

 

SC: “likely” “indicated”.  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.

Quote

 

“In each chamber, the blocks of the north side are marked with one gang name and those of the south side with another, while the end walls are divided in half and the blocks are marked with the name of the gang whose name is on the nearest side wall.”

A. M. Roth, Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom, pp. 125-126

 

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

But here’s what we actually find:

SC: Roth’s simplistic diagram of the distribution of the crew names is not quite as compelling as she presents.

Over and above which – let’s assume here for a moment or two, that Roth’s theory actually has 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 it’s the same crew names found in the northern rubble pile (all Companions of Khufu gang) but in the southern rubble pile he finds two gang names (the Pure Ones of Horus Mededu and the White Crown gang).  So, he notices a distribution pattern of these crew names in the rubble piles – Companions to the north Pure Ones and White Crown to the south. Not so difficult to observe.  The next step is easy – he simply replicates this observed distribution pattern from the rubble pile gangs, onto the walls and roof blocks of the newly opened chambers. Easy-peasy. Job done. Except, from the distribution that was done (images above), his painters messed up a couple of times.

Quote

WP: Finally, as Hanslune points out above, what Goyon discovered on the outside core stones after the Second World War was most likely another aper mark: followed by the finds of all the other aper marks in the second boat pit, etc. etc.

SC: I love that Goyon image.  And all the ones of the gang names from the boat pits too!  Why? Well, far from somehow proving the painted marks in the Vyse chambers are genuine (how the hell would they prove this?), what they actually show is that these crew names appear to have been common enough on stone blocks around Giza. As such, as previously stated, it is not beyond a stretch to consider that Vyse found other crew names among the rubble piles of the northern and southern sides of the pyramid that he was actively clearing away. Indeed, he even tells us he found markings on various stones in these very places! In his private account, he even writes that he blew up some of these stones with gunpowder! (Getting rid of evidence??)

Hans further comments (in another post) that Vyse’s men must have been very busy copying the profusion of marks.  I’m glad he noticed so many wall marks. Just makes you wonder how Vyse and Raven didn’t notice a single one of them!

Quote

 

WP: So who is most likely to have correctly discerned the real significance of the placement of the aper marks?  Richard Lepsius, Kurt Sethe and Ann Macy Roth?

Or Scott Creighton?

 

SC: Firstly, you present a false comparison. And secondly, you are imputing here that Roth’s theory of the distribution of the crew names is 1) fact and 2) correct. Neither is true. Have Lepsius, Sethe or Roth ever considered the evidence I have uncovered and present in my books and in these short videos?  Absolutely not in the case of Lepsius and Sethe. Almost certainly not in the case of Roth. So your comparison is bogus.

Then we have this:

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?

Quote

 

WP: Vyse was elated when he first found the name. . .

SC: Where, exactly, does Vyse state he was "elated" at finding "the name" (presumably of Khufu)?

 

SC: The passage you cite (above) makes no mention of Vyse finding a [king’s] “name”, just hieroglyphics, so you made that up. Secondly, this passage is about Vyse entering Campbell’s, the last chamber he discovered. The first discovery of a cartouche (king’s name) was in Wellington’s Chamber, a cartouche ‘discovery’ which Vyse doesn’t even specifically mention anywhere. So this passage is entirely disconnected to your claim of “first found the name”. All Vyse tells us with regards to the first chamber opened (Wellington’s) is that he discovered hieroglyphs on a wall near to the figure of a bird (the chamber’s east wall as shown in Perring’s drawings). The cartouche in this chamber is found on the west wall and, far from being "elated" by its ‘discovery’, it went totally unmentioned in the relevant private journal passage (and not specifically mentioned in his published account). It’s almost as if this cartouche wasn’t actually on the wall during that first inspection of Wellington’s.

So tell me, how exactly does the above passage you cite prove the painted markings in the Vyse Chambers are authentic?  Simply because Vyse was “in high spirits” and was inviting someone to come and see his discoveries?

Let me tell you why I think Vyse was in “high spirits” on that particular evening, and it has little to do with finding another chamber or (allegedly) more hieroglyphics – he’d done that several times already, so finding more would hardly send him to a state of being “elated”.

There’s a passage in Vyse’s private journal where he writes (and I’m paraphrasing here) that he was tired and longed for his operations to be over so that he could return home to England. If I remember correctly, he is even counting the weeks/months before he thinks he will be finished his operations.  From his published account, Vyse knew that in opening Campbell’s that he had opened the final chamber:

Quote

“[Campbell’s Chamber] appeared to be the last and to complete the series…” - Vyse, Operations, Vol 1, p. 277

Vyse almost certainly would have been ”elated” to know that his extensive labours would soon, finally, be drawing to a close and that he could soon return home – nothing to do with finding more chambers or hieroglyphics - imo. And yes – he invited people to the pyramid because he had to have witnesses to his (ahem) ‘discoveries’. In the same way he used the Arbuthnotts as witnesses to his ‘discoveries’, he probably hoped to do so also with Campbell’s (which the Arbuthnotts did not witness). If you make or fake an important discovery, then you’re always going to try and get yourself a credible witness of good standing to attest to the authenticity of your discovery (genuine or otherwise).

And finally:

Quote

WP: To repeat: Vyse wanted to make a discovery

SC: Of course he did. But Vyse wasn’t thinking small. It is self-evident from his own published account that he personally did not consider the discovery of the four chambers, of themselves, to be significant discoveries:

Quote

The chamber above Nelson's (afterwards called Lady Arbuthnot's) was opened, and in the course of the afternoon I entered it with Mr. Raven. We found this apartment of the same description, and nearly of the same dimensions as the others below it, being thirty-seven feet four inches by sixteen feet four inches. Like the rest it was quite empty, and built in the same manner, but with less care, and with a greater proportion of calcareous stone on the northern and southern sides. The excavation was continued, in order to get above it. -  Vyse, Operations, Vol 1, p. 256

Khufu’s true burial still not found. Keep tunnelling boys! He must be in one of these chambers!

Vyse clearly desired to make the biggest, most important discovery of all – the discovery of the true burial chamber of Khufu (think Howard Carter and King Tut). So, what does that particular ambition/desire tell us of the man?

Well, wishing to make an important discovery isn’t usually sought merely for its own sake. Almost certainly Vyse would have desired the effect that important discoveries usually generate. In short, the man was seeking fame; to have his name immortalised in the world’s history books; fame like that afforded to Howard Carter much later after his discovery of King Tut. And, ironically, Vyse achieved his sought after fame with his (ahem) ‘discovery’ of Khufu’s various names within these chambers.  Almost 200 years later, we’re still discussing the man and his ‘discovery’.  Now that’s what you call lasting fame.

SC

Edited March 24 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

Also, think about it.

Vyse arranged (or tried to arrange) independent witnesses to his discovery of the painted wall markings.  Why? Because he knew he would need them to attest to the authenticity of his 'discoveries'.  But outside of his team (Perring, Hill, Raven, Mash, Brettell etc), the only independent witness to his 'discoveries' was Sir Robert Arbuthnott (and perhaps Lady Anne Arbuthnott who may also have visited the Chambers).

But the Arbuthnotts are only witnesses to Vyse's 'discoveries' after the fact.  As would the witness he tried to recruit on the night of 27th May in Mr Hill's Hotel. Let me repeat that - they are after the fact!

Why?  Vyse would have known that he needed credible, independent witnesses to his 'discoveries' (that's why he recruited Arbuthnott and sought to recruit another independent witness for Campbell's).  

Except these witnesses were only to see his 'discovery' of the quarry marks after the fact.  Why?  If Vyse wanted truly credible witnesses to his discoveries then he would have had an independent witness ready to enter each chamber (perhaps not Wellington's) at the very same time as Vyse entered the chambers, or at least a minute or so afterwards - for all intents and purposes, the same time.

In so doing, there could never have been any charge of impropriety of his discoveries. From his alleged discoveries in Wellington's and Nelson's, Vyse would surely have known that there was almost certainly a good chance of finding wall marks upon the walls of the next chamber he was blasting open, Lady Arbuthnott's Chamber.

So why not have a credible, independent witness of good standing, going into the chamber when he himself first enters it?  They enter it together. That would have been the smart, sensible thing to do - and Vyse wasn't a stupid man.  We can see that Vyse absolutely understood the importance of having independent, credible witnesses to attest to the authenticity of his discoveries - so why ask them to attest to his 'discoveries' only after the fact?  Why not have the witness in place before the fact i.e. before anyone had accessed each chamber? That would have been the smart thing to do. 

Yet Vyse, understanding the importance of credible, independent witness, sought that his witnesses attest to his 'discoveries' only after the fact (days later) and we can only wonder why? 

SC 

[Hanslune]

Quote

Here’s some BREAKING NEWS for you: YOU don’t get to be judge and jury over whether my case against Vyse is valid or not – so get down from your perch and give yourself a reality check.

Actually we do. People write papers and guess what others can disagree or agree with them, ma'at. Its called building a consensus especially since your evidence is opinion based. If you are so unconcerned why do you beat this subject to death if not to convince us you are right? If you actually didn't care you wouldn't have spent years screaming about it over,  and over, and over and over again much like Cladking's endless fail parade.

I don't think anyone on this forum agrees with you yet you just keep saying the same stuff repeatedly as if that is gonna work. Has it?

[Trelane]

Still didn't answer what your motivations are to discredit him, but whatever. I'm an outlander in these discussions. It just seems so odd how feverish you get when affixing foul play on Vyse and allegedly forging something.

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Vyse arranged (or tried to arrange) independent witnesses to his discovery of the painted wall markings.  Why? Because he knew he would need them to attest to the authenticity of his 'discoveries'.  But outside of his team (Perring, Hill, Raven, Mash, Brettell etc), the only independent witness to his 'discoveries' was Sir Robert Arbuthnott (and perhaps Lady Anne Arbuthnott who may also have visited the Chambers).

But the Arbuthnotts are only witnesses to Vyse's 'discoveries' after the fact.  As would the witness he tried to recruit on the night of 27th May in Mr Hill's Hotel. Let me repeat that - they are after the fact!

Why?  Vyse would have known that he needed credible, independent witnesses to his 'discoveries' (that's why he recruited Arbuthnott and sought to recruit another independent witness for Campbell's).  

Except these witnesses were only to see his 'discovery' of the quarry marks after the fact.  Why?  If Vyse wanted truly credible witnesses to his discoveries then he would have had an independent witness ready to enter each chamber (perhaps not Wellington's) at the very same time as Vyse entered the chambers, or at least a minute or so afterwards - for all intents and purposes, the same time.

In so doing, there could never have been any charge of impropriety of his discoveries. From his alleged discoveries in Wellington's and Nelson's, Vyse would surely have known that there was almost certainly a good chance of finding wall marks upon the walls of the next chamber he was blasting open, Lady Arbuthnott's Chamber.

So why not have a credible, independent witness of good standing, going into the chamber when he himself first enters it?  They enter it together. That would have been the smart, sensible thing to do - and Vyse wasn't a stupid man.  We can see that Vyse absolutely understood the importance of having independent, credible witnesses to attest to the authenticity of his discoveries - so why ask them to attest to his 'discoveries' only after the fact?  Why not have the witness in place before the fact i.e. before anyone had accessed each chamber? That would have been the smart thing to do. 

Yet Vyse, understanding the importance of credible, independent witness, sought that his witnesses attest to his 'discoveries' only after the fact (days later) and we can only wonder why? 

Possibly because the work was difficult, and in a tight space with limited access and it was dangerous.  

Now, I don't know about you, but if I'm going to excavate in a rather difficult and dangerous spot, the last thing I want is a pack of people hanging around and waiting for me to make a discovery.  The others had no real function for that part of the work (they weren't excavators nor were they experienced with explosives) and had no business being in on the initial discovery.

Furthermore, they weren't exploring the chamber with modern lighting... they had lanterns and candles and torches and it's easy to overlook details if you've got that kind of terrible lighting.

You assume fraud based on modern conditions... good lighting, organized dig teams, modern recording methods.  That's simply not what happened.

[Scott Creighton]

9 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Possibly because the work was difficult, and in a tight space with limited access and it was dangerous. 

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. 

Quote

K: Furthermore, they weren't exploring the chamber with modern lighting... they had lanterns and candles and torches and it's easy to overlook details if you've got that kind of terrible lighting.

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.

Quote

K: You assume fraud based on modern conditions... good lighting, organized dig teams, modern recording methods.  That's simply not what happened.   

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?

SC

Edited March 25 by Scott Creighton

[Windowpane]

15 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

• A witness from the time stated that “Faint marks were repainted, some were new”

...

ALL of the above are FACTS and are backed up by the material evidence that exists from the time that anyone can check for themselves

For any readers new to this subject, this subject ("faint marks") has been dealt with many times, and even a book published on it.

The book explains how the statement above ("faint marks") was made by one Walter Allen (1918-2000), referring to the alleged visit to Giza in 1837 by his ancestor, Humphries Brewer (1817-1867).

Unfortunately, Walter Allen is noted for making other claims concerning alleged family traditions about his ancestors for which no evidence was ever produced.  Examples are the assertion that one of his ancestors took part in the 1715 Jacobite rising; and that Edith Plantagenet, * alleged cousin to Richard the Lionheart, had married the Duke of Northumberland, a supposed distant ancestor of the family of Walter Allen's mother. 

Regrettably, no historical evidence was ever adduced for any of this.

Let us turn to the question of Humphries Brewer himself.

It's highly likely that, yes, he did visit Giza.

But have you found any (reliable) evidence that he visited Giza in 1837?

 

*  I love this story!

[Scott Creighton]

7 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

For any readers new to this subject, this subject ("faint marks") has been dealt with many times, and even a book published on it.

The book explains how the statement above ("faint marks") was made by one Walter Allen (1918-2000), referring to the alleged visit to Giza in 1837 by his ancestor, Humphries Brewer (1817-1867).

Unfortunately, Walter Allen is noted for making other claims concerning alleged family traditions about his ancestors for which no evidence was ever produced.  Examples are the assertion that one of his ancestors took part in the 1715 Jacobite rising; and that Edith Plantagenet, * alleged cousin to Richard the Lionheart, had married the Duke of Northumberland, a supposed distant ancestor of the family of Walter Allen's mother. 

Regrettably, no historical evidence was ever adduced for any of this.

Let us turn to the question of Humphries Brewer himself.

It's highly likely that, yes, he did visit Giza.

But have you found any (reliable) evidence that he visited Giza in 1837?

 

*  I love this story!

Trying to nibble away at the edges isn't going to help:

• 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).

And I say again. 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?

SC

[Scott Creighton]

11 hours ago, Trelane said:

Still didn't answer what your motivations are to discredit him, but whatever. I'm an outlander in these discussions. It just seems so odd how feverish you get when affixing foul play on Vyse and allegedly forging something.

Are you happy when you know someone is trying to con you? You might be, but I suspect not.

I'm passionate about ancient Egypt.  I'm even more passionate about finding the truth about ancient Egypt.  So when I uncover evidence that suggests someone has tried to subvert that truth and con me into thinking a certain way, it grinds my gears. And I do what I can to expose their lies.

SC

[Windowpane]

38 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Trying to nibble away at the edges isn't going to help:

 

Yes: how true those words are.  Important not to be deflected from my question:

Have you found any (reliable) evidence that he [Humphries Brewer] visited Giza in 1837?

38 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

<< Why would you trust the word of a proven liar? >>

Again: how true those words are.

So why would you trust the word of someone who can be shown to have made unproven claims about the roles allegedly played by his supposed remote ancestors?

 

[Scott Creighton]

22 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

Yes: how true those words are.  Important not to be deflected from my question:

Have you found any (reliable) evidence that he [Humphries Brewer] visited Giza in 1837?

38 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

<< Why would you trust the word of a proven liar? >>

Again: how true those words are.

So why would you trust the word of someone who can be shown to have made unproven claims about the roles allegedly played by his supposed remote ancestors?

 

Still you persist in nibbling away at the edges:

• 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).

And I say, yet again. 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?

SC

[Trelane]

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Are you happy when you know someone is trying to con you? You might be, but I suspect not.

I'm passionate about ancient Egypt.  I'm even more passionate about finding the truth about ancient Egypt.  So when I uncover evidence that suggests someone has tried to subvert that truth and con me into thinking a certain way, it grinds my gears. And I do what I can to expose their lies.

SC

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

[Scott Creighton]

6 minutes ago, Trelane said:

With the number of items that point contrary to your assertions. . .

Like what? Please be specific.

SC

Edited March 25 by Scott Creighton

[Windowpane]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Still you persist in nibbling away at the edges:

...

Still you leave my previous question unaddressed and unanswered:

Quote

Let us turn to the question of Humphries Brewer himself.

It's highly likely that, yes, he did visit Giza.

But have you found any (reliable) evidence that he visited Giza in 1837?

Your lack of reply indicates that, in fact, you have no evidence of such an event.   Therefore, despite your claim that this is just one of many: 

Quote

... FACTS [that] ... are backed up by the material evidence that exists from the time that anyone can check for themselves

we may safely conclude that Brewer did not visit Giza in 1837; and therefore did not witness anything at Giza at that time, let alone a forgery (that in any case never took place) by someone who had neither the expertise nor the desire to perpetrate such an act.

 

[Scott Creighton]

4 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

we may safely conclude that Brewer did not visit Giza in 1837; and therefore did not witness anything at Giza at that time, let alone a forgery (that in any case never took place) by someone who had neither the expertise nor the desire to perpetrate such an act.

The strength of my case does not hinge on one piece of evidence (Humphries Brewer) that you are singularly obsessed with. The strength of my case for fraud is the sum of all its parts, not one single piece of evidence.

SC

  

Edited March 25 by Scott Creighton

[Trelane]

30 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Like what? Please be specific.

SC

I am referring to the items the other forum members have presented in this thread. I have been sifting through older ones for reference and the same items were brought up then as well. 

I'm not here to debate with you. I am curious towards your persistent motivations. 

[Scott Creighton]

8 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I am referring to the items the other forum members have presented in this thread. I have been sifting through older ones for reference and the same items were brought up then as well. 

I'm not here to debate with you. I am curious towards your persistent motivations. 

No disrespect, Trelane.  But I see no evidence from others in this thread that actually proves the painted markings in the Vyse Chambers are genuine. If you see otherwise, then please present it here again and explain to me why it convinces you the marks are genuine. I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views as to why it convinces you.

SC

Edited March 25 by Scott Creighton

[Trelane]

2 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

No disrespect, Trelane.  But I see no evidence from others in this thread that actually proves the painted markings in the Vyse Chambers are genuine.

SC

None taken. Like I stated, I'm a novice in this arena and only here out of personal interest.  If you feel otherwise, that's perfectly fine.

I simply just don't understand the almost feverish assertions that folks like yourself and Hancock have with stating that there's some grand plan to hide "the truth".

[Scott Creighton]

Just now, Trelane said:

None taken. Like I stated, I'm a novice in this arena and only here out of personal interest.  If you feel otherwise, that's perfectly fine.

I simply just don't understand the almost feverish assertions that folks like yourself and Hancock have with stating that there's some grand plan to hide "the truth".

Like I said before.  I have uncovered evidence that convinces me that Vyse almost certainly perpetrated a fraud. That pi55es me off. And it does so because it has, for almost 200 years, perverted and corrupted our view of ancient Egypt with particular regard to these monuments at Giza.

As I have said elsewhere.  Vyse lied (repeatedly). He even misrepresented material evidence to try and cover up his lie. Check video 2. If that doesn't pi55 you off, then I don't really know what will. 

SC

[Trelane]

36 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Like I said before.  I have uncovered evidence that convinces me that Vyse almost certainly perpetrated a fraud. That pi55es me off. And it does so because it has, for almost 200 years, perverted and corrupted our view of ancient Egypt with particular regard to these monuments at Giza.

As I have said elsewhere.  Vyse lied (repeatedly). He even misrepresented material evidence to try and cover up his lie. Check video 2. If that doesn't pi55 you off, then I don't really know what will. 

SC

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?

Edited March 25 by Trelane

[Jon101]

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?.