The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 3

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

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.

Beyond yours, evidently. I somehow doubt that you’re qualified in psychology, any more than you are in anything else. Having studied same myself, I find it entirely comprehensible.

The mind is prone to seek and find order in random material. Those parts seen as significant are likely to become figure, while the rest becomes ground. The likely effects of social pressure and “groupthink” in such a case are obvious. (Ever heard of Asch?)

The limits of your comprehension are not the limits of the world.

M.

As previously predicted he has run from the 7 other cartouches questions.

Just as he has he has done before.

So Scott you didn't forget to mention them in your upcoming book did you?

I'll start another thread in your sub-forum just about those cartouches so we keep track of your deep thoughts on the matter.

lol

originally posted by: mstower
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.

Of course and the implied solution of science's many mysterious will be solved by his, and only his, pontifications on these matters........lol

a reply to: Hanslune

I think posting all of the hieratic/hieroglyphic inscriptions in their entirety would be beneficial, so people can see the 'big picture' and not just a narrow and skewed representation of just one of the cartouches. There is even a set of quarry marks in the northern shaft off of the Queen's Chamber.

In this thread Scott wants to deliberate over two dots placed beneath the snake glyph. WHY, Scott asks, did Vyse focus on just those two, when the cartouche is covered with dots?

The bigger picture reveals it is not just the cartouche covered in random splashes of red ochre, but the walls in general. This image was posted by Scott in the opening post, to highlight what he claims are all of the "ignored" dots of paint. The one in yellow are "ignored," and the two in red in the second image are copied by Vyse, HilL, and Perring:



But additional views of the walls show that there is a valid reason to ignore these - it is clearly just paint splatters or scraping of ochre (from Robert Schoch's site):




As we can see, this is found throughout the chamber, numerable splashes or scrapings of ochre in a very random pattern. At what point does it become obvious that these are not part of any hieroglyph or intentional work? Clearly Vyse, Hill, and Perring realized these were not important.

So why did they draw into their sketches of the cartouche two dots beneath the snake glyph?

Because those dots appeared, to their eyes, more important than the others. We may not know exactly why they felt they were more important, only that they did as evidenced by their recording it into their drawings. If I had to hazard a guess as to why, it's because those two dots are symmetrically centered on the snake and an even distance below it. It does give the appearance that the two dots and snake are 'balanced' inside the cartouche.

But - these are not the only dots copied into the drawings. Scott ignores that Hill also copies two more dots at the tail of the quail. Note, in the drawing above Scott claims this second set of dots are among those "ignored" by Vyse and crew (I've highlighted it in green):



Here is Hill's facsimile, in which he did in fact draw these two additional 'dots':



We can debate till the cows come home what these men were thinking when they drew these. Understanding hieroglyphics was in it's infancy at that time. We can assume that they were attempting to be complete in their renderings, by including those additional markings that appeared in however small a way, a part of the actual cartouche and not among the scrapings and splatter of paint on the walls.

Personally I find it ridiculous that the Great Pyramid debate is reduced to little more than snide character attacks on an 19th C. British Aristocrat, while ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports Khufu as it's builder. Scott, like Sitchin, can only focus on just this one cartouche in Campbell's Chamber because it is the only one that has some minute discrepancy - mind you, the discrepancy does not lie with the cartouche itself, but only by those who copied it down some 4,000 years later because they didn't draw it a certain way on a piece of paper to Scott Creighton's liking. Meanwhile, those hieratic inscriptions continue to be ignored because the Pyramidiots have yet to figure out a way to debase them with smears on it's discoverers.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer


Nice work BM, yes I have noticed that many fringe writers spend a great deal of time trying to chip away at what we know about the pyramids, often focusing on trivia so they can insert their own trivia and based on it make up new assumptions.

His misunderstanding of the political culture of 1808 is downright amusing, but then he is trying to force the data and its not going down easily.

Would you care to speculate on why he runs from the other cartouches question? He had done so on other boards too, kinda like a cross to a vampire.

I seriously wonder if in his quest for being noted as the most infamous 'outta context' man in history. He actually left the other ones out of his book?

Of course he has always liked to have 'scripted discussions', saying the same thing over and over again on a narrow range.

lol

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

BM: At what point does it become obvious that these are not part of any hieroglyph or intentional work? Clearly Vyse, Hill, and Perring realized these were not important.

So why did they draw into their sketches of the cartouche two dots beneath the snake glyph?

Because those dots appeared, to their eyes, more important than the others. We may not know exactly why they felt they were more important, only that they did as evidenced by their recording it into their drawings.

SC: They realized these dots were not important because they obviously saw them for what they were—just random, unintentional paint splashes. That they would then apply any more significance to the two splashes under the snake is just plain ludicrous. They would have seen that these were also paint splashes too and just as unintentional as all the others. You can kid yourself otherwise, but you would just then be kidding yourself.

BM: Personally I find it ridiculous that the Great Pyramid debate is reduced to little more than snide character attacks on an 19th C. British Aristocrat..

SC: The man is a known fraudster. He committed electoral fraud. Fact. And there is evidence from his own hand that shows he committed further fraud with these markings in the Great Pyramid (and more evidence to come). I know it must be hard for you to accept but you can’t just attempt to dismiss all this evidence as “doodles”. “Doodles” doesn’t explain why Vyse was meticulous enough to record, on TWO occasions, the two small dots under the snake glyph whilst entirely missing out the much more obvious detail of the three lines within the disc. Vyse was meticulous—he even tells us so in his journal. There is no reasonable reason why he would be meticulous enough to draw in the two small dots and miss out the hatched lines in the disc--TWICE. The only reasonable explanation is that he didn’t copy the lines in the disc because, on 27th May, he didn’t know about them, they weren't in his 'master source'. It was only after Perring, on 2nd June, sent Vyse drawings from Tomb of the Trades of the Khufu cartouche with hatched disc that Vyse then acts and, on 16th June, goes to see these cartouches for himself and on that same date we see Vyse record, for the first time, the version of the cartouche that we observe in the chamber today i.e. with the hatched lines in the disc.

BM: …while ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports Khufu as it's builder.

SC: What “overwhelming evidence”? Present it.

BM: Scott, like Sitchin, can only focus on just this one cartouche in Campbell's Chamber because it is the only one that has some minute discrepancy –

SC: Unlike Sitchin, I point to credible discrepencies from Vyse’s own hand and also from Hill’s facsimile drawings. Unlike Sitchin the discrepencies I present are not easily debunked (sorry but “doodles” doesn’t crack it).

BM: …mind you, the discrepancy does not lie with the cartouche itself, but only by those who copied it down some 4,000 years later because they didn't draw it a certain way on a piece of paper to Scott Creighton's liking.

SC: “…the discrepancy does not lie with the cartouche itself …” This is nonsense. It is by VIRTUE of the fact that the chamber cartouche does not match the journal cartouche that presents the discrepancy. They are not mutually exclusive. You can’t just assume the chamber cartouche is correct and the journal version is just a bad copy. You need to deal with the ACTUAL EVIDENCE and do so uncritically. You are not doing that. You are completely ignoring the evidence from Vyse himself where he categorically states that Campbell’s Chamber was “minutely examined” for hieroglyphs. You are completely ignoring the fact that Vyse would have been totally anticipating such markings in this disc in Campbell’s Chamber after having observed the discs in the chambers below all had centre markings. You are completely ignoring the fact that in Vyse’s private journal, he actually draws the Khnum-Khuf disc with centre markings. You completely ignore the fact that Vyse was meticulous enough to draw the two dots under the snake glyph but somehow—beyond all reasonable expectation—misses the much more obvious detail of the hatched lines in the disc. And then there are all the contradictions of his page of 16th June, placing an 'X' above discs, double-lines dics etc.

Now, it might suit your needs to ignore all that evidence—but it won’t make it go away. There is one very reasonable view that reasonably explains all these anomalies/discrepancies but it is one I rather doubt you wish to entertain. Fraud. The palced a cartouche in the chamber. Later realised it wasn't quite right and later went back to add in three lines. This explains the sequence of unhatched discs in Vyse's journals as well as the contradictory statements/markings in his journal. It also explains why both Vyse & Hill recorded the two dots under the snake, missed out the lines and got the orientation wrong.

And keep in mind here also—you have not yet seen all the evidence from Vyse’s private journal that points to this fraud. As stated previously, I will, in due course be presenting further evidence from Vyse’s own hand whereby he writes an instruction for two of his assistants to inscribe very specific hieroglyphs at a very specific location inside the Great Pyramid. (I understand that, obviously you cannot yet respond this but the evidence is there and will be presented in due course).

Vyse faked these markings in Campbell’s Chamber. No doubt about it. But do not misunderstand what I am saying. I fully accept that some of these markings in these chambers are likely to be genuine. The question is which are genuine and which are fake?

BM: Meanwhile, those hieratic inscriptions continue to be ignored because the Pyramidiots have yet to figure out a way to debase them with smears on it's discoverers.

SC: Which hieratic glyphs? The ones that appear only from the fifth dynasty? And do you really think Vyse would have been able to tell the difference?

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Vyse faked these markings in Campbell’s Chamber. No doubt about it. . . .

Compare here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

“Vyse faked these markings. No question.”

No question? Speculative theories which rely crucially on large and entirely unevidenced assumptions do not yield certainty. Claims to the contrary reveal the claimant to be very largely engaged in BS.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

SC: Which hieratic glyphs? The ones that appear only from the fifth dynasty? And do you really think Vyse would have been able to tell the difference?

So says our self-appointed expert on Old Kingdom palaeography. Hieratic glyphs. LOL!

Creighton perhaps forgets that, according to his currently favoured theory (cribbed largely from Alford), Vyse copied the crew names from some presumably authentic (albeit entirely unevidenced) “master source”.

Which leaves him needing to explain why crew names of the 5th dynasty (so assigned by his palaeographic expertise!) would name a monarch of the 4th dynasty. Why is this a problem? It was not normal practice: crew names were otherwise based on one name or another of the reigning monarch. Known crew names of the 5th dynasty (including some in hieroglyphic contexts) do not name Khufu.

M.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

And keep in mind here also—you have not yet seen all the evidence from Vyse’s private journal that points to this fraud. As stated previously, I will, in due course be presenting further evidence from Vyse’s own hand whereby he writes an instruction for two of his assistants to inscribe very specific hieroglyphs at a very specific location inside the Great Pyramid. (I understand that, obviously you cannot yet respond this but the evidence is there and will be presented in due course).

Yadayadaya. How many times have you said this now? We’ve had these “in due course” claims before and nothing came of them but a damp squib.

Bring it on. I look forward to it. Be sure and transcribe the entire page, so that we may properly judge the context and your competence in transcribing what not so long ago you said you could barely read.

M.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

“You can’t just assume the chamber cartouche is correct and the journal version is just a bad copy.”

Yes, we can. We can assume exactly this.

Making this assumption, we get a simple, sane, credible story. Following you, we get a convoluted, nutjob conspiracy theory.

M.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

STILL unwilling to talk about the other cartouches huh Scott? Doing so proves your devotion to misrepresentation and your need to take your evidence out of context.

Lol

It is so obvious and important to see that Scott Creighton is correct and that he has more than adequately exposed Col. Vyse's forgery.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

A review (1 Aug 2021) of The Great Pyramid Hoax (2016).

an older review of 'Great pyramid hoax' by Colavito

Part 1

Part 2