The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 3

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Most archaeologist’s drawings fall short of the glory of Godlike perfection. On Creighton’s criteriorn, most archaeologists must be forgers.

On a similarly credible criterion, most of those who entered Parliament in 1807 must have gone on to commit archaeological forgery 30 years later.

One might almost begin to suspect that Creighton’s criteria are chosen to support the desired conclusion of the moment, with no consideration of how reasonable or otherwise they might prove to be when applied more widely.

M.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

BM: Robert Bauval's take on Scott Creighton's claim:

Two dots or not two dots? That is the question…
(myblog.robertbauval.co.uk)

He raises very valid points.

SC: Bauval is talking nonsense. He is basing his assessment on a black & white scanned photocopy of Martin Stower’s copy of this page from Vyse’s journal. All the grayscale is converted to black like this:



But when you look at an image with colour/grayscale, you can clearly see the other dot under the score-through, thus:



SC: I doubt even the indefatigable Mr Stower will agree with Bauval on this. Over and above which—the dots are not actually needed here to prove this drawing is what Vyse placed in Campbell’s Chamber as Vyse himself writes alomgside it, “in Campbell’s Chamber”. I wonder how Bauval missed that?

And as for Bauval claiming this:

RB: My own interpretation is that what can be derived from that page in Howard Vyse’s diary is that he was correcting himself of how the Khufu cartouche should be drawn rather than plan a forgery as claimed by Scott.

SC: Well, of course he was correcting himself. He had drawn the Khufu cartouche in his diary 3 weeks earlier with the unhatched disc and then again on the 16th June and found out (via Mr Perring on 2nd June) that this spelling was probably wrong. In the very last piece of space on this page of 16th June Vyse finally renders the Khufu cartouche with the correct disc i.e. the hatched disc we actually see in Campbell’s Chamber today.

In short, Vyse drew the unhatched Khufu cartouche into his private journal weeks BEFORE he drew the hatched version. In other words, he was correcting the unhatched version by adding hatch lines. That is what Vyse’s private journal shows.

BM: Would not this make more sense than to to imagine that Howard Vyse left such alledged incrimination ‘evidence’ in his diary for posterity?

SC: This was Vyse’s private journal i.e. for his eyes only. And who knows—perhaps he was planning to have a bonfire of his deceit, planned for 9th June, 1853. Except he died on the 8th. (I’m sure you get the point).

SC

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

BM: I find it laughable that you feel that any minute variation in Vyse's drawings from the actual hieroglyphs are proof that his drawings in his journal came first and the ancient worker graffiti second.

SC: All you have to do is provide hard, scientific evidence that proves these marks are authentic and I shall drop my claim. The points I raise from the available evidence strongly suggests these marks are the result of fraud perpetrated by Vyse and his assistants in 1837. As yet, I have yet to see from you (or any other Egypt-apologist) a cogent counter-argument to the points I raise, summarized here:

1) Why did Vyse and Hill draw the two small dots under the snake glyph (image 1 below) when it should have been clear to them that these were just random splashes of paint like the numerous other paint spots in and around the Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber? Why did Vyse and Hill think that these two particular random paint splashes below the snake glyph were significant but all the others were not?

Image 1:



2) Why did Vyse & Hill BOTH draw the cartouche (and its crew name) horizontally when these markings are painted vertically in the chamber? And why do this with only these two sets of glyphs when all other markings they copied were rendered with the correct orientation?

3) Why did Vyse, on 27th May, 1837, copy the Khufu cartouche into his private journal with an essential element of that cartouche missing, namely the cross-hatchings within the disc? How is it possible that Vyse could have missed these markings when he tells us, in his own words, that Campbell’s Chamber was “minutely examined” for hieroglyphs? How is it possible that he could be so meticulous to observe and record two (irrelevant) tiny dots under the snake glyph and yet entirely miss out a much more obvious (and relevant) element from the Khufu cartouche? Are we expected to believe that Vyse was meticulously detailed one moment and not the next? And given Vyse’s experience of all the other discs with centre markings he had observed from opening the previous three chambers below Campbell’s, how could he possibly not have been anticipating finding markings within the disc of the Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber?

4) Why did Vyse, on 16th June, 1837, copy the Khufu cartouche into his private journal again with the very same essential element of that cartouche missing, namely the cross hatchings within the disc?

5) Why did Vyse place an ‘X’ (‘wrong’) above the disc of the Khufu cartouches he drew on 16th June, 1837? He places an ‘X’ above a Khufu cartouche with blank disc and an ‘X’ also above a Khufu cartouche with hatched disc. Why the contradiction?

6) Vyse, on 16th June, 1837, is clearly deliberating over the use of the blank versus the hatched disc? Why is Vyse even contemplating any of this at all on 16th June? His job is to simply record what he finds, not deliberate over it. That’s for the experts.

7) Why does four out of the five discs on the page Vyse drew on 16th June have only a single outline? Why the double outline only for the hatched disc?

8) And since you bring up the issue of Mr Perring’s plan drawings, why do we find this:

Image 2:



Notice the two crew names in A & B above. Notice the gap between the floor of the chamber and the top of the block becomes gradually wider. Notice also how, as this gap becomes wider, the glyphs drawn make use of the additional space i.e. the glyphs are drawn much smaller in A (limited space) and then in B are drawn larger when more space becomes available. This indicates, contrary to mainstream opinion, that these markings were not drawn at the quarry site but were actually drawn in-situ. Notice also how there is no crew name above the Khufu cartouche ‘C’.

I am afraid I have to strongly disagree with your counter-argument. ‘Doodles’ doesn’t crack it, I’m afraid.

BM: You know if all he wanted to do was commit a forged cartouche of Khufu he could easily have kept it as a solar disk and left it at that. That was the conventional thought in his day, and would have comported with the Khufu cartouche found in the Tomb of the Trades.

SC: He probably did render it initially (on 27th May) with a blank disc for that is what his ‘master source’ presented. However, around 2nd of June, Mr Perring sent Vyse drawings of Khufu cartouches he had made from the Tomb of the Trades except these Khufu cartouches had discs with hatched lines. So ‘intrigued’ was Vyse by this discovery that he set off to the Tomb of the Trades on 16th June in order to see these ‘different’ Khufu cartouches for himself. He even presents them in his published book (‘Operations’ Vol 2, p.7-8). From Vyse’s point of view, the natural thing to conclude after seeing the hatched disc versions of the Khufu cartouche is that the blank disc version he had Mr Hill copy into Campbell’s Chamber (and which he copied TWICE into his private journal) were probably unfinished hatched discs. And so, to ensure there was no ambiguity, he made sure the lines were added in Campbell’s Chamber and to Hill’s facsimile.

BM: I find your hyperbole over the drawings orientations on paper much ado about nothing.

SC: Well, I fully expected a paid up Egypt-apologist to say that. But you cannot cogently explain why they would BOTH get every other drawing they made properly presented (including drawing glyphs sideways and upside-down) and BOTH get these two wrongly presented. It is not “hyperbole”—it is a legitimate question.

BM: It is obvious they fit the drawings on the sheets as best they could. They had no real convention to follow as to how they would be laid out, it was up to the artists eye. I would hazard that Hill of Perring crumpled up many a sheet where they didn't quite get the drawing centered or ran out of room.

SC: Hill is making 1:1 facsimile drawings i.e. ‘exact copies’ of what he sees. As such it is fairly likely he knew in advance what size of sheet he would require in to order to make a 1:1 copy.

BM: More importantly is those drawing were signed by witnesses, attributing to the correctness of those drawings. You claim where they signed their names on the sheets gives the orientation of the hieroglyph on the walls of the chambers, but that is utter conjecture on your part.

SC: No—it is a very reasonable deduction from the evidence presented. Not only would a facsimile drawing require to record the size of particular glyphs but also their orientation. Hill was asked by Vyse to make facsimile drawings i.e. exact copies of how they appeared in the chamber. As such he would also have to have a means of recording their orientation. He did so simply by using his own signature and that of the other witnesses who testified to the likeness of other drawings. You simply would not ask witnesses to look at glyphs that were upside-down and ask them to compare it with a drawing you were showing them of the same glyphs rotated 180 degrees. You would show them like-for-like and ask them to sign it in that orientation. That is just bleeding common sense.

Continued....

Continued from previous....

BM: Hill's measured drawing of the chamber's walls and the locations of the hieroglyphs and hieratic inscriptions gives the proper orientation. Perring's drawings only capture the hieroglyphs themselves and not how they were orientated (up, down, sideways) on the walls. If a later researcher wanted to study Perring's facsimiles, he would surely turn the page to read it as best suited him/her.

SC: No idea what you are talking about. As far as I can see, Perring’s plan drawings of the chambers (including floors, walls and roofs) show all the glyphs with their corresponding orientations. (See image 2 above as an example).

BM: If you want to see how accurately Vyse et. al. did capture the layout and orientation of the hieroglyphs, then see his published works here:
Operations carried on at the pyramids of Gizeh in 1837: with an account of a voyage into Upper Egypt, and an appendix.
You just have to remind yourself this was drawn by hand by a human being, taking measurements by torchlight in a very confined space.

SC: Probably by oil lamp. And you have to keep in mind that if they could see two tiny dots under the snake glyph and were meticulous enough to record them, why didn’t Vyse see and record the much larger and more obvious hatched disc--TWICE?

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
RB: My own interpretation is that what can be derived from that page in Howard Vyse’s diary is that he was correcting himself of how the Khufu cartouche should be drawn rather than plan a forgery as claimed by Scott.

SC: Well, of course he was correcting himself. He had drawn the Khufu cartouche in his diary 3 weeks earlier with the unhatched disc and then again on the 16th June and found out (via Mr Perring on 2nd June) that this spelling was probably wrong. In the very last piece of space on this page of 16th June Vyse finally renders the Khufu cartouche with the correct disc i.e. the hatched disc we actually see in Campbell’s Chamber today.

In short, Vyse drew the unhatched Khufu cartouche into his private journal weeks BEFORE he drew the hatched version. In other words, he was correcting the unhatched version by adding hatch lines. That is what Vyse’s private journal shows.

Who’s mindreading now? Should you really be doing this, when you fault others for doing so?

First let’s deal with that “unhatched Khufu cartouche” (sic). You have (as so often) had this explained to you already:

www.grahamhancock.com...

Did you not understand what I was telling you?

In this very scrappy sketch, we see, not a blank disc, but a disc with two dots in it:

imageshack.com...

Perhaps you should post your grayscale image of this one and show it even more clearly.

What we have is a scrappy sketch, far from photographically accurate, with a suggestion of detail in the circle. To call this “unhatched” is pushing it. I dare say that most of us, looking at this sketch and noting its sketchiness, would not expect photographic accuracy in this detail, any more than we find it in the rest of the sketch—whereas you, with your literal-minded approach and following the evidence (rather than ignoring it), are going to have to accommodate those dots in some way or other. Hence what I wrote those several months ago:

“Are we now going to have a scenario in which Vyse (1) painted dots in the circle, (2) rubbed them out and (3) replaced them with lines?”

And again, you’ve got the order of the drawings on the later page wrong.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
BM[?]: Would not this make more sense than to to imagine that Howard Vyse left such alledged incrimination ‘evidence’ in his diary for posterity?

SC: This was Vyse’s private journal i.e. for his eyes only. And who knows—perhaps he was planning to have a bonfire of his deceit, planned for 9th June, 1853. Except he died on the 8th. (I’m sure you get the point).

Which is, of course, no answer at all. Again we have the master forger, the man who thought of everything, conveniently failing to cover his tracks. Why would he risk, through keeping the journal so long, not being able to dispose of it? Sentiment? Forgetfulness? Why not dispose of it just as soon as he no longer had need of it?

M.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
5) Why did Vyse place an ‘X’ (‘wrong’) above the disc of the Khufu cartouches he drew on 16th June, 1837? He places an ‘X’ above a Khufu cartouche with blank disc and an ‘X’ also above a Khufu cartouche with hatched disc. Why the contradiction?

Creighton,

Have you still not grasped that this “X” (your inaccurate rendition, not what Vyse drew) is a cross-reference mark (double dagger)?

imageshack.com...

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
6) Vyse, on 16th June, 1837, is clearly deliberating over the use of the blank versus the hatched disc? Why is Vyse even contemplating any of this at all on 16th June? His job is to simply record what he finds, not deliberate over it. That’s for the experts.

Who’s mindreading now? Were you there, looking over his shoulder? Did he tell you this?

This was Vyse’s private journal, for his eyes only. You emphasise this, when it suits you. He could put what he liked in it. Why should he not?

Vyse presumed to think about his discoveries—and this makes him a forger?

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
7) Why does four out of the five discs on the page Vyse drew on 16th June have only a single outline? Why the double outline only for the hatched disc?

For consistency with the way the rest of the cartouche was drawn? To represent on this scale the thickness of the paint stroke?

This was his private journal, for his eyes only. He was not required to meet an external standard.

As for the rest (on which I am disinclined to comment in detail), I note these salient points:

You need to learn what deduction is.

You need to learn what cross-hatching is.

You need to learn what a crew name is.

M.

I find, however, that I must comment on this . . .

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
SC: He probably did render it initially (on 27th May) with a blank disc for that is what his ‘master source’ presented. However, around 2nd of June, Mr Perring sent Vyse drawings of Khufu cartouches he had made from the Tomb of the Trades except these Khufu cartouches had discs with hatched lines. So ‘intrigued’ was Vyse by this discovery that he set off to the Tomb of the Trades on 16th June in order to see these ‘different’ Khufu cartouches for himself. He even presents them in his published book (‘Operations’ Vol 2, p.7-8). From Vyse’s point of view, the natural thing to conclude after seeing the hatched disc versions of the Khufu cartouche is that the blank disc version he had Mr Hill copy into Campbell’s Chamber (and which he copied TWICE into his private journal) were probably unfinished hatched discs. And so, to ensure there was no ambiguity, he made sure the lines were added in Campbell’s Chamber and to Hill’s facsimile.

Creighton,

You are proving very, very slow in grasping this point.

Vyse drew the (Khufu) cartouche in the Tomb of Trades without any lines in the circle.

No such lines are evident in photographs and (relatively recent) epigraphy.

How, then, is Vyse supposed to have got the idea of “hatching” from this source?

Don’t try telling me that he got the idea from Perring (whose drawings we don’t have).

Don’t try passing off Birch’s transcription as a photorealistic record:

www.grahamhancock.com...

Outside Creighton’s fantasies, all indications are that Vyse did not and could not have got the idea of “hatching” from the Tomb of Trades. On the contrary, the indications are that Vyse was contrasting its presence in Campbell’s Chamber with its absence in the Tomb of Trades.

M.

Ah I see our outta context friend is still trying his old, 'badger them with the same info until they give up and I 'win' (lose) technique'.

To make it simple Scott. In two years lets revisit your arguments (constantly repeated here to no effect) and see if the consensus has taken them up or just laughed at them- if they pay any attention to them at all.

Considering the fate of your previous attempts we all know the answer to that eh?

LOL

Oh while you are repeating yourself endlessly could you address the 7 other cartouches in the chambers?

originally posted by: Hanslune
To make it simple Scott. In two years lets revisit your arguments (constantly repeated here to no effect) and see if the consensus has taken them up or just laughed at them- if they pay any attention to them at all.

SC: Do show me the following evidence/arguments:

1) From two years ago where I raised the question of the two dots drawn by Vyse & Hill and why they specifically, out of the paint spots available in and around the Khufu cartouche, they for some inexplicable reason sought to give significance to those two?

2) From two years ago where I have presented the orientation anomaly of Hill's facsimile drawings?

3) From two years ago where I have presented the orientation anomaly of Vyse's private journal drawings?

4) From two years ago where I have presented the two unhatched disc anomalies in Vyse's private journal?

Indeed, I challenge you to find any of the above arguments/evidence even from 6 months ago.

No? Didn't think so.

As usual, you are talking through a hole and it ain't the one in your head.

Consensus? You clearly mistake me for someone who gives a pig's fart about consensus. Consensus, laddie, doesn't make a thing right and truth is never decided by a show of hands. You should learn to understand that.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hanslune
To make it simple Scott. In two years lets revisit your arguments (constantly repeated here to no effect) and see if the consensus has taken them up or just laughed at them- if they pay any attention to them at all.

SC: Do show me the following evidence/arguments:

1) From two years ago where I raised the question of the two dots drawn by Vyse & Hill and why they specifically, out of the paint spots available in and around the Khufu cartouche, they for some inexplicable reason sought to give significance to those two?

2) From two years ago where I have presented the orientation anomaly of Hill's facsimile drawings?

3) From two years ago where I have presented the orientation anomaly of Vyse's private journal drawings?

4) From two years ago where I have presented the two unhatched disc anomalies in Vyse's private journal?

Indeed, I challenge you to find any of the above arguments/evidence even from 6 months ago.

No? Didn't think so.

As usual, you are talking through a hole and it ain't the one in your head.

Consensus? You clearly mistake me for someone who gives a pig's fart about consensus. Consensus, laddie, doesn't make a thing right and truth is never decided by a show of hands. You should learn to understand that.

SC

He’s losing it again.

If you didn’t care about consensus, you wouldn’t expend all of this effort trying to convert others to you views. Would you?

Try counting to ten, laddie. You might make less of a fool of yourself.

M.

a reply to: Hanslune

He carries on as if he’d had no answers, which is just plain dishonest.

Other cartouches: he can start by explaining why a forger, operating in 1837, would place the cartouche name “Khnum-khufu” in the Great Pyramid.

M.

So the question is why would Vyse paint onto the chamber walls all of these seemingly random "dots," if he had intended, according to the "templates" he drew in his journal and Scott Creighton, it should only be two dots? Perhaps the master forger sneezed just as he was putting the finishing touches on his fake cartouche? If these painted graffiti marks are forgeries then why would the forger place random dots all over. Now, to most these might be regarding as ancient paint splatters. You even berate Vyse for not drawing all these random dots (or paint splatters) into his journal notes, yet in one of his drawing we see three dots under the snake and not just two (and those dots are underscored with a faint line, as though Vyse was highlighting them for further consideration). Was he being dutiful and drawing those that seemed most relevant to him at the time or was he working out the language and which ones made the most sense to his understanding of hieroglyphs? We'll never know, but by all accounts photos of that area of the wall make it fairly apparent that these are not intentional "painted" dots by the ancient workers but something haphazard. Splatters or scrapings of ochre? Another set of hieroglyphs are even more scraped up looking and barely legible. That would more than comport with the notion these were painted on to the blocks either in the quarry or in transit and abraded enroute. Perhaps the painted quarry makes dragged against another surface or the ground and scrapings of ochre paint were smeared onto other portions of the block.

Scott you also ask why should Vyse's drawing and Hill's both include these two dots - haven't you considered the fact that both men were working together in close proximity viewing, measuring, and drawing these hieroglyphs and would certainly produce the same in their illustrations, after conferring over the matter? Hill and Perring were tasked with making the more accurate drawings. In fact, look closely at Hill's drawing and you see he did capture two additional "random dots" at the tail of the second quail. I'd say he did a good job in creating his facsimiles, given the circumstances. We know today that those dots (the ones by the quail) are not part of the hieroglyphs but credit them for capturing them in their drawings as surely any dutiful explorer should.

Further, Vyse was only drawing in his personal journal for himself. It needs to be pointed out that the smaller drawing shows the full set of hieroglyphs and cartouche (upper right of the page) and then an enlarged version of just the cartouche (lower left), which does show the feature you are belaboring - a hatched disk. As Bauval notes, the smaller version also shows a line slashing through it, as he suggests, 'Does it not mean, perhaps, that this drawing is wrong” or “ignore this drawing”….? And furthermore does not the little “X” sign on the top right also means “wrong drawing”?' (source)

I'm also concerned you are not being intellectually honest by "reinterpreting" Vyse's drawings in a manner omitting parts of the drawing to suit your needs:


(source: Robert Bauval)

Vyse's drawing is on the top, your "recreated drawing" (omitting the line) is on the bottom. Editing images is such a Sitchin tactic. There is no need to "redraw" any of Vyse's journal pages. Just use the actual images from the pages so we can judge for ourselves if the features you claim do or don't exist are actually there or not.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hanslune
To make it simple Scott. In two years lets revisit your arguments (constantly repeated here to no effect) and see if the consensus has taken them up or just laughed at them- if they pay any attention to them at all.

SC: Do show me the following evidence/arguments:

1) From two years ago where I raised the question of the two dots drawn by Vyse & Hill and why they specifically, out of the paint spots available in and around the Khufu cartouche, they for some inexplicable reason sought to give significance to those two?

2) From two years ago where I have presented the orientation anomaly of Hill's facsimile drawings?

3) From two years ago where I have presented the orientation anomaly of Vyse's private journal drawings?

4) From two years ago where I have presented the two unhatched disc anomalies in Vyse's private journal?

Indeed, I challenge you to find any of the above arguments/evidence even from 6 months ago.

No? Didn't think so.

As usual, you are talking through a hole and it ain't the one in your head.

Consensus? You clearly mistake me for someone who gives a pig's fart about consensus. Consensus, laddie, doesn't make a thing right and truth is never decided by a show of hands. You should learn to understand that.

SC

What the heck are you babbling about now Scot? I said two years in the future. Have an adult assist you with the reading will you. lol

Oh I see your back to 'lone wolf' status and against science again - so what was all that 'stuff' about science you were throwing around the last few weeks.....oh that right the Scott rule of changing what he writes to fit the message above.

Too funny....well you've been totally successful you have no consensus. Congrats on the victory.

Now what about those other cartouches?

originally posted by: mstower


SC

He’s losing it again.

If you didn’t care about consensus, you wouldn’t expend all of this effort trying to convert others to you views. Would you?

Try counting to ten, laddie. You might make less of a fool of yourself.

M.

He desperately wants acceptance by the same people he screams about all the time. However, based on his well known habit of making stuff up and other amusing traits that academics hate (remember when he use to talk about Atlantis - then decided that made him look stupid so he stopped - then started to insist he had never talked about Atlantis?)

I wonder how he is going to avoid the cartouche question?

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Well written BM

I wonder if Scott is channeling Sitchin?

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

As Bauval notes, the smaller version also shows a line slashing through it, as he suggests, 'Does it not mean, perhaps, that this drawing is wrong” or “ignore this drawing”….?

As has been mentioned several times, the slash was probably part and parcel of preparing the journal for publication.

- Vyse leaves England for a long trip;

- Whilst away, he writes/scribbles a journal (presumably resting on one of those antique writing-boxes you occasionally see on the Antiques Road Show);

- On his return, he goes through the journal, using the notes to prompt his memory, and probably dictating to a secretary; as he finishes each page, he crosses it through so that he knows he's finished working on that particular section;

- the completed MS is sent off to the publisher's, and eventually returned to Vyse - presumably the document labelled "1842" in the National Archives at Aylesbury.

originally posted by: Hanslune

Oh I see your back to 'lone wolf' status and against science again - so what was all that 'stuff' about science you were throwing around the last few weeks.....oh that right the Scott rule of changing what he writes to fit the message above.

Very good point on the implications for his scientism of Creighton’s remarks on consensus. His ritual invocation of science is exposed (to our surprise) as purely rhetorical.

Lacking intellectual culture, Creighton has no developed views on what science is. Hence his inability even to aspire to consistency.

M.

a reply to: Hanslune

The facts highlighted by Creighton’s remarks would seem to imply (inductively) that two years from now he’ll be presenting another new set of arguments, with equivalent plonking assurance, while the current crop is quietly forgotten.

M.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hello BM,

SC: I fear we are simply now going around in circles here.

BM: So the question is why would Vyse paint onto the chamber walls all of these seemingly random "dots," if he had intended, according to the "templates" he drew in his journal and Scott Creighton, it should only be two dots? Perhaps the master forger sneezed just as he was putting the finishing touches on his fake cartouche? If these painted graffiti marks are forgeries then why would the forger place random dots all over.

SC: Perhaps all the other dots were already on this block or perhaps, realizing the two dots were not actually part of the king’s name (having by now seen a number of other Khufu cartouches), they added the random dots to ‘mask’ their mistake. We will never know the answer to this but it still remains very odd that Hill selected those dots from all the others. Given he would have seen all the other random paint splashes in and around that cartouche, it is strange that he felt that these particular dots were significant.

BM: Now, to most these might be regarding as ancient paint splatters. You even berate Vyse for not drawing all these random dots (or paint splatters) into his journal notes…

SC: No—I question why neither men seemed to realize these were paint splatters like all the other paint splatters. If they did realize they were paint splatters (like all the others) then why even bother to draw them? This is to say—if they knew these two dots did not form part of the king’s name, then why bother drawing them?

BM:.. yet in one of his drawing we see three dots under the snake and not just two (and those dots are underscored with a faint line, as though Vyse was highlighting them for further consideration).

SC: Yes, Vyse made a double tap with his pen for this dot which can only actually be seen under high magnification. When viewing the page under normal magnification it appears as a single dot. I think the intention is perfectly clear which is proven by the two dots he placed under the snake glyph in the cartouche he made on 27th May. As for the line under the dots—I think you are spot on here and that was my own thoughts, that he underlined these to check them further and realized they were not in fact part of the kings’ name.

BM: Scott you also ask why should Vyse's drawing and Hill's both include these two dots - haven't you considered the fact that both men were working together in close proximity viewing, measuring, and drawing these hieroglyphs and would certainly produce the same in their illustrations, after conferring over the matter?

SC: Mr Perring eventually realizes they are a mistake as he drops them from his final drawing of this cartouche. So why, if Vyse and Hill were presumably conferring, would they not ask each other the question: “Do these dots look like random paint splashes or do you think they are a part of the king’s name?” How they both came to the conclusion, after observing all the other random paint spots in and around that cartouche, that they must be part of the king’s name is simply beyond comprehension.

BM: Hill and Perring were tasked with making the more accurate drawings. In fact, look closely at Hill's drawing and you see he did capture two additional "random dots" at the tail of the second quail.

SC: I have considered those but it is entirely feasible that these ‘tail splashes’ could have been considered by Hill as an element of the chic’s feathers and therefore relevant. But two small isolated dots?

BM: I'd say he did a good job in creating his facsimiles, given the circumstances.

SC: I don’t disagree but that’s not the point.

BM: Further, Vyse was only drawing in his personal journal for himself. It needs to be pointed out that the smaller drawing shows the full set of hieroglyphs and cartouche (upper right of the page) and then an enlarged version of just the cartouche (lower left), which does show the feature you are belaboring - a hatched disk. As Bauval notes, the smaller version also shows a line slashing through it, as he suggests, 'Does it not mean, perhaps, that this drawing is wrong” or “ignore this drawing”….? And furthermore does not the little “X” sign on the top right also means “wrong drawing”?'

SC: And again, if Bauval had access to Vyse’s private journal he would see that Vyse places strike-through marks through just about every one of his graphics as part of his editing process prior to his book publication. He also placed long vertical strike-through lines through every page of his handwritten journal. This strike-through is nothing special as I am sure M. Stower will testify to if you ask him.

BM: I'm also concerned you are not being intellectually honest by "reinterpreting" Vyse's drawings in a manner omitting parts of the drawing to suit your needs:

Vyse's drawing is on the top, your "recreated drawing" (omitting the line) is on the bottom. Editing images is such a Sitchin tactic. There is no need to "redraw" any of Vyse's journal pages. Just use the actual images from the pages so we can judge for ourselves if the features you claim do or don't exist are actually there or not.

SC: You need not concern yourself. First of all, you now have access and can look at the original cartouche from Vyse's journal under ‘Fair Use’ provisions. My reproduction drawings were used for magazine articles in countries where the ‘Fair Use’ law was unclear to permit use of the original copyright material. That is the only reason why I had to make my own reproductions. And I did not place the strike-through line through my reproduction drawing as I knew this to have been merely an editing function of Vyse once he had dealt with that particular page/graphic of his handwritten notes. So, concern yourself not.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

SC: I fear we are simply now going around in circles here.

Certainly you are, through persistence in propping up the corpse of Sitchin’s forgery allegation.

New bad arguments for old — and so the cycle continues.

M.