Showing how the first pyramids of ancient Egypt may be 19,000 years old

I believe the ancient egyptians had anti gravity to build the prymids, this video explains some ideas about it.

a reply to: Hooke

Hello Hooke,

Further to my earlier post on this issue, allow me to further clarify my position on this.

In this section of my book I am primarily concerned with allegations of fraudulent activity having been levelled against Colonel Vyse. The question I raise does not concern itself with the matter of the Firmaun dispute per se but rather I am more concerned here with asking who it was that was making these allegations against Vyse and what was the precise nature of this particular allegation made on 10th April, 1837.

Caviglia obviously made allegations against Vyse (on 21st April, 1837) of what amounts to Vyse effectively defrauding him (in Caviglia's view). The April 10th example I cite in my book, however, has nothing to do with the Caviglia accusation against Vyse--it was a separate accusation made by someone else and Vyse does not tell us anywhere in his journal who that person was (which I find very odd hence why I suspect this may have been Humphries Brewer--can't prove that though). Vyse's volumes are entirely silent on the precise detail of this particular accusation made on 10th April.

In short, there was an accussation of fraud made against Vyse by Caviglia around 21st April, 1837. But there was ALSO another, quite separate, accusation made by some other annoymous person(s) recorded in Vyse's journal of 10th April 1837. Who was this other accuser? What was the precise nature of their grievance with Vyse and Campbell? What evidence did they have? And why does Vyse keep the identity of this person annoymous in his published account? Why mention this at all and then not expose the individual involved?

Hope that is clearer for you.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Hi Scott,

(This is in reply to both your previous posts).

At the end of his comments on the “slanderous paragraph,” Vyse adds:

"This absurd accusation is only worthy of notice as affording a specimen of the anonymous attacks to which the Colonel is exposed, from the adventurers who infest Egypt."

This emphasises that Campbell is the primary target — and that this attack is “a specimen of the anonymous attacks” on Campbell. These are the attacks (in the plural) that you make so much of – and, contrary, to your claim, Vyse does name himself as one of their targets. Only the "slanderous paragraph" is an attack on both of them.

As I said previously: Howard Vyse described the nature of the accusations. He didn’t enter into undignified speculation about the identity of the anonymous commentators.

Vyse, whatever your opinion of him, was a gentleman, acting as a gentleman should. A gentleman was one who, inter alia, was scrupulous about paying bills, honouring agreements, giving credit where credit was due, defending those who were not in a position to defend themselves, etc. So he defended Campbell.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Do show me where Vyse cross-references these two separate passages in his volumes i.e. the passage on p.225 of Operations Vol 1 with the Appendix p.152 of Operations Vol 2? There isn't a cross-reference, Hooke and, as such, these could be quite separate attacks made by different individuals with different agendas. Vyse himself states he and Colonel Campbell were subject to such "attacks" (plural) by "annoymous adventurers" (plural). You (and others) are jumping to the conclusion that Vyse, in these two passages, is referring to one and the same attack made by one and the same individual. It might well be, of course, but we cannot know that for sure and nor can we know who was behind it/them for the attacks (plural) were, according to Vyse, made by "annonymous adveturers". Caviglia can hardly be described as an annonymous adventurer.

These two passages in Vyse's volumes might not refer to the same incident/individual and I do not have the luxury of jumping to the conclusion that they were. We do not even know if it is Caviglia (or someone close to him) who was behind any such attacks. For all we know the "slanderous paragraph" could have been published in the English press by Huimphries Brewer (an Englishman) with nothing to do with Caviglia himself. If I had said these were definitely one and the same attack then I would surely have been criticised for having jumped to conclusions, as you are doing now.

We do not know if these are one and the same attack made by one and the same person and that is essentially what I am saying in my book. I cannot exoplicitly say these passages refer to one and the same incident/individual because Vyse doesn't say that i.e. Vyse does not cross-reference the two passages and he clearly talks of "attacks" (plural).

But either way, Vyse does not come out of this smelling of roses. Far from it.

We have linked to Vyse's side of the firmaun scandal (p.152 of 'Operations at Gizeh', Vol. 2)

“We?” Who’s this “we”? You didn’t link to (p.152 of 'Operations at Gizeh', Vol. 2): I did – and so did the poster who provided the reference that you were originally told about in April 2013. Apparently, it’s taken you two and a half years, and two different people telling you about it, for you to find it.

Others also lent their support to the defence of Campbell and Vyse (113-4), putting the episode in context and giving a realistic idea of the "evidence" which may have been behind it: the past conduct of other consuls-general in relation to the antiquities trade. Gliddon does not name him, but Campbell’s predecessor Henry Salt might be considered an example.

What evidence do you imagine there could be for Campbell’s intentions? Will you be producing some of it?

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

but for those interested in Caviglia's side of the story, here are translations of his letters published in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine (1837).

(Or the readers could just consult Operations II pgs 169 and 172, where Howard Vyse dutifully includes the letters in order that people can come to their own conclusion on the matter.)

You mention Humphries Brewer (a young engineer believed to be in Egypt at this time). But why would Humphries Brewer make accusations which had nothing to do with what he’d supposedly witnessed?

Why on earth would Humphries Brewer attack Campbell? It entirely contradicts the Walter Allen logbook account, which says something to the effect that “Humphries agreed with Campbell.”

Why, anyway, would Brewer attack Vyse (and/or Campbell) on (or before) 10 April? Surely Brewer was supposed to have been working for the English oculist until mid-April?

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

In this section of my book I am primarily concerned with allegations of fraudulent activity having been levelled against Colonel Vyse. The question I raise does not concern itself with the matter of the Firmaun dispute per se but rather I am more concerned here with asking who it was that was making these allegations against Vyse and what was the precise nature of this particular allegation made on 10th April, 1837.

Let’s see. You don’t know who the accuser was (but are prepared to make a wild guess). You don’t know what the accuser’s evidence was. You don’t know whether the accuser even had any evidence - and you certainly don’t have the evidence yourself. So what are you left with, apart from baseless insinuation?

And why, if Brewer actually had told a story of forgery in the “slanderous paragraph” (this aspect being carefully omitted in Operations), would Vyse have drawn attention to the paragraph at all?

What's more, if Brewer was so concerned, why did he never contact the press with the story at some later date - even after Vyse’s death in 1853?

Regards,

Hooke

originally posted by: Hooke

"and, contrary, to your claim, Vyse does name himself as one of their targets"

Typo - this should have read: "Vyse does not name himself".

a reply to: Hooke
Hello Hooke,

Let me respond to your post by first stating that you have now, on two occasions, avoided giving a simple answer to my straightforward question concerning Mr Colavito’s ‘review’ of the Vyse fraud chapter of my book (parts of which we are now discussing). I won’t pursue it further for it seems you are determined not to reply. I shall leave the readers here to draw their own conclusion as to why you are so reticent to answer my simple question.

Now for the rest of your post. You write:

Hooke: At the end of his comments on the “slanderous paragraph,” Vyse adds:

"This absurd accusation is only worthy of notice as affording a specimen of the anonymous attacks to which the Colonel is exposed, from the adventurers who infest Egypt."

This emphasises that Campbell is the primary target — and that this attack is “a specimen of the anonymous attacks” on Campbell. These are the attacks (in the plural) that you make so much of – and, contrary, to your claim, Vyse does not name himself as one of their targets. Only the "slanderous paragraph" is an attack on both of them.

SC: Indeed—Vyse is attacked. That is what I am saying and have been saying. There is nothing contradictory about it. An attack on them both is noted on 10th April. Yes, that means Vyse too. But what are the specifics of this particular attack? Who made the attack? Vyse simply does not elaborate. He writes numerous pages detailing the Caviglia attack but only one small paragraph on this attack. Odd.

Hooke: As I said previously: Howard Vyse described the nature of the accusations. He didn’t enter into undignified speculation about the identity of the anonymous commentators.

SC: This is how Vyse describes the attack on himself (and Campbell, of course):

“…and which implied that the Colonel [Campbell] and myself [Vyse] intended to make our fortunes under the pretence of scientific researches.”

SC: As you can plainly see, this attack on Vyse on 10th April was NOT about the firman. What were the precise details of this particular attack? Was Vyse planning to smuggle important artifacts out of the country or devise some other fraudulent scheme? Was it just Vyse and Campbell involved? How exactly would the scheme work? What evidence did the accuser have for launching such an attack? Who was making this 10th April accusation? Vyse does not say. He simply does not, as you pointed out, “…enter into undignified speculation…” about it. But, as I have already stated, he is, however, quite happy to enter into page after page of undignified wrangling with Caviglia, presenting, in precise detail, his side of that particular dispute.

Could it be that Vyse did not enter into “undignified speculation” in this instance because it wasn’t “speculation” and the person making this accusation fully knew what Vyse was up to? And could it be that Vyse did not want the name of this person mentioned here because he wanted the name of this individual entirely expunged from his works because of the very serious allegations he made that Vyse had his team fabricate evidence? Might this person have been Humphries Brewer, the man Vyse simply could not, imo, mention at all in his published journal? Brewer was to become persona non grata insofar as Vyse’s published account was concerned.

Hooke: Vyse, whatever your opinion of him, was a gentleman, acting as a gentleman should. [snip]

SC: Vyse was certainly a “gentleman” but only in the sense that every early-to-mid nineteenth century member of the British ruling elite was automatically a gentleman born with a silver spoon in his gob. But just because he was a posh-boy doesn’t make him a “gentleman”. Vyse certainly portrays himself as a good, righteous, upstanding pillar of society and I am sure many thought he was just that. But we now know that he committed electoral fraud to become an MP in the British parliament. That is hardly the conduct of a “gentleman” and certainly Mr. Philip Staples didn’t think it was hence why he asked Parliament to investigate Vyse’s Beverley election. The investigating committee found no evidence of electoral fraud (quelle surprise) and, self-evidently, Vyse did not confess to his actions to the investigating committee for he was duly elected. The evidence of Vyse’s electoral fraud only came out some years after his death.

You seem to be viewing Vyse with rose-tinted goggles, Hooke. He was no “gentleman” in the modern sense of the word but rather a ruthless operator who would do whatever it took for him to get his way. His pleadings in his book concerning Caviglia seem earnest enough but he was no Ernest. (See what I did there).

Hooke: We have linked to Vyse's side of the firmaun scandal (p.152 of 'Operations at Gizeh', Vol. 2)

“We?” Who’s this “we”? You didn’t link to (p.152 of 'Operations at Gizeh', Vol. 2): I did –

SC: “We” is you and I having this discussion. The link came out (from you) as a result of us having this discussion.

Hooke: …and so did the poster who provided the reference that you were originally told about in April 2013. Apparently, it’s taken you two and a half years, and two different people telling you about it, for you to find it.

SC: I’m not sure if this will come as a surprise to you or not, Hooke, but I do not actually read every single post others make on every single discussion board I participate on. And I certainly do not respond to every post someone makes. I do not actually recall reading the post you linked to. I may have and meant to go back later to respond but simply forgot as a result of being sidetracked with more important matters. However, if I had responded to the post from two years ago (by Irna?), I would have said to him/her precisely what I have said to you in this thread.

Hooke: Others also lent their support to the defence of Campbell and Vyse (113-4),

SC: So what. Others lent their support to Caviglia. R.C. of Manchester did so.

Hooke: What evidence do you imagine there could be for Campbell’s intentions? Will you be producing some of it?

SC: I am not interested in “Campbell’s intentions”. I am interested only in Vyse’s actions.

SC: …but for those interested in Caviglia's side of the story, here are translations of his letters published in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine (1837).

Hooke: (Or the readers could just consult Operations II pgs 169 and 172, where Howard Vyse dutifully includes the letters in order that people can come to their own conclusion on the matter.)

SC: Indeed. But I find it amusing and not a little hypocritical that you take exception to me using second or third hand sources in my book and then go and do the very thing I am criticized for. The reference I gave is second-hand, yours (from Vyse’s volume) is third hand. Is this ‘do as I say, not as I do’?

Hooke: You mention Humphries Brewer (a young engineer believed to be in Egypt at this time). But why would Humphries Brewer make accusations which had nothing to do with what he’d supposedly witnessed?

SC: Are you absolutely sure Colonel Vyse, a proven fraudster, is telling us everything about the accusation of 10th April? Are you absolutely sure Vyse hasn’t edited out here other serious allegations made against him?

Continued....

a reply to: Hooke

Continued from previous...

Hooke: Why on earth would Humphries Brewer attack Campbell? It entirely contradicts the Walter Allen logbook account, which says something to the effect that “Humphries agreed with Campbell.”

SC: The passage in question actually says:

“Had words with a Mr. Hill and Visse when he left. He agreed with a Col. Colin [sic] Campbell & another Geno Cabilia[sic].”

It doesn’t say “Humphries agreed”. This could be referring to "Visse" agreeing with Campbell and Caviglia (although I do happen to think that it does refer to Brewer). If it is Brewer then what is it he agreed with Campbell and Caviglia about? That using gunpowder to blast inside the Great Pyramid was destructive, perhaps? Or that it would probably be in his best interests to leave the site given the serious accusations he was making, perhaps? There could be any number of things he agreed with Campbell on but none of the ‘agreements’ of this kind with Campbell preclude the possibility that Brewer also disagreed with him on other matters.

Hooke: Why, anyway, would Brewer attack Vyse (and/or Campbell) on (or before) 10 April? Surely Brewer was supposed to have been working for the English oculist until mid-April?

SC: It seems that Brewer stayed on in Egypt after Dr Nayler had departed.

Dr Naylor took Humfrey along. Treatment not sussessful [sic], hospital not built. He joined a Col. Visse exploring Gizeh pyramids.

SC: I do not insist the accuser of 10th April is Brewer—this is just my speculation. It most certainly was not Caviglia. So, if neither of these individuals, what we have then is a total of THREE individuals making various charges against Vyse during his time at Giza in 1837--Caviglia, Brewer and A. N. Other. Are you absolutely sure that there is no substance to any of these accusations against Vyse? There’s an old saying—there’s no smoke without fire. And chapter six of my book presents plenty of fire as I am sure, since having read the book, you will know.

Hooke: Let’s see. You don’t know who the accuser was (but are prepared to make a wild guess). You don’t know what the accuser’s evidence was. You don’t know whether the accuser even had any evidence - and you certainly don’t have the evidence yourself. So what are you left with, apart from baseless insinuation?

SC: This is exactly my point—a point I made two years ago. We do not know the precise details of the accusation Vyse cites in his 10th April entry. How many more times do I have to say this? And we won’t know if it is baseless or not because Vyse failed to provide the precise details of this particular accusation that would allow us to fully and properly investigate it.

Hooke: And why, if Brewer actually had told a story of forgery in the “slanderous paragraph” (this aspect being carefully omitted in Operations), would Vyse have drawn attention to the paragraph at all?

SC: I think it’s called ‘heading off trouble at the pass’. But given what we now know of Vyse, it would probably have served him better not to have mentioned this incident of 10th April at all. One accusation may just be bad luck. Two different accusations may be a coincidence. Three accusations becomes a pattern. And four accusations (his electoral fraud) is – well, I’ll leave you to decide for yourself.

Hooke: What's more, if Brewer was so concerned, why did he never contact the press with the story at some later date - even after Vyse’s death in 1853?

SC: We’ll never know. There could be any number of reasons. Perhaps he just wanted to forget the whole thing and get on with his life? Perhaps Vyse threatened to ruin him if he went public? Perhaps he did publish and we just haven’t found it yet?

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton
S&F. Very interesting

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Hello Scott,

Let me respond to your post by first stating that you have now, on two occasions, avoided giving a simple answer to my straightforward question concerning Mr Colavito’s ‘review’ of the Vyse fraud chapter of my book (parts of which we are now discussing).

No problem. To repeat the point I made previously (that I think you must have missed): I think that Jason Colavito’s excellent review was perfectly fair.

I am not interested in “Campbell’s intentions”. I am interested only in Vyse’s actions.

Vyse’s actions are documented in some detail What seems to interest you more is tittle-tattle about Vyse.

You should be interested in Campbell’s intentions, because the alleged intentions of Cambell and Vyse jointly are the basis of the only accusation here which implicates Vyse as well as Campbell.

Anyone not interested in the main target of the “slanderous paragraph,” and its actual, documented character, won’t find the truth of the matter. At the moment, you’re using it merely as a pretext for insinuating that other accusations were made.

I think it’s called ‘heading off trouble at the pass’.

It would not be heading off trouble. It would be asking for trouble.

But given what we now know of Vyse, it would probably have served him better not to have mentioned this incident of 10th April at all.

My point in a nutshell.

I’ll leave you to decide for yourself.

Thanks for that. My decision is that I disagree profoundly with your treating accusations as proof.

Perhaps he just wanted to forget the whole thing and get on with his life?

Which is why he tried (according to you) to take his story to the press? And what became of the righteous indignation which prompted his “dispute” with Raven and Hill and his “words” with Hill and Vyse?

Perhaps Vyse threatened to ruin him if he went public?

And after Vyse had died? And after Brewer's remaining family in England had joined him in America?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have him taking risks to tell his story in 1837 and then doing nothing about it for the rest of his life, when it would have been far, far safer to do so.

Perhaps he did publish and we just haven’t found it yet?

Surely his descendants would have known about if he had? The lack of any subsequent controversy tends to suggest that he did not.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps it never happened. As you know perfectly well, we don’t have one single word in Humphries Brewer’s own hand in support of this story.

Regards,

Hooke

If we look at ancient cultures we can see they may have been trying to illustrate a flying machine, and uses of technology in ancient times.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

We do not know the precise details of the accusation Vyse cites in his 10th April entry.

On the contrary, it is mere speculation on your part that there was anything more to it than Vyse said there was.

Was Vyse planning to smuggle important artifacts out of the country or devise some other fraudulent scheme?

If he had been, why would he have mentioned the “slanderous paragraph” at all? Why unnecessarily draw attention to this supposed wrongdoing?

Could it be that Vyse did not enter into “undignified speculation” in this instance because it wasn’t “speculation” and the person making this accusation fully knew what Vyse was up to?

You keep forgetting: it hasn’t been shown that Vyse was “up to” anything.

And could it be that Vyse did not want the name of this person mentioned here because he wanted the name of this individual entirely expunged from his works because of the very serious allegations he made that Vyse had his team fabricate evidence?

If Vyse wanted to expunge from his published works all mention of some unnamed person, then, again, why mention anything at all about any “slanderous paragraphs”?

But just because he was a posh-boy doesn’t make him a “gentleman”.

“Posh boy” is a derogatory modern term that probably says more about the person using it than the person they use it of. Vyse was a gentleman, in the fullest sense of that term.

But we now know that he committed electoral fraud to become an MP in the British parliament.

We also now know what you don’t, having refused to accept the historical fact: namely, that most parliamentary candidates of that era did very much as Vyse did. What we do not know is that Vyse was responsible for (or even knew about) payments to voters. It was, as a rule, the local establishment who took care of such things. All of which has been explained to you before, in detail and repeatedly.

Colonel Vyse, a proven fraudster . . .

Incorrect.

Just to remind you:

Staple petitioned, alleging bribery and treating, to no avail.

Regards,

Hooke

a reply to: Hooke

Hello Hooke,

SC: Let me respond to your post by first stating that you have now, on two occasions, avoided giving a simple answer to my straightforward question concerning Mr Colavito’s ‘review’ of the Vyse fraud chapter of my book (parts of which we are now discussing).

Hooke: No problem. To repeat the point I made previously (that I think you must have missed): I think that Jason Colavito’s excellent review was perfectly fair.

Then I am afraid our discussion here is concluded. In no way whatsoever did Mr Colavito give a fair review of the chapter we have been discussing now for the past few days--and I am fairly certain that you know he didn't.

This is what Greg Reeder asked Mr Colavito:

” Thanks for reviewing this book by Scott Creighton. I have not seen it as yet, though I have been following his posting on other forums. I wish you had delved into Scott's "Vyse forgery" claims with a little more detail…”

And this is how Mr Colavito replied:

JC: ”...if you'd like to know his evidence, it is this: (a) Vyse is a bad person whom no one liked and who committed fraud in other contexts, and (b) the German fringe people who scraped part of the red paint off of the relieving chambers last year claim that carbon dating found that the paint was only 200 years old, but the lab they said did the test refused to confirm their claim. Therefore, the name of Khufu is a fake and everyone is covering up the truth.”

SC: And that is all he has to say. This 'review' (above) is in no way whatsoever a fair summation of this chapter of my book and I am certain that you must know that, Hooke. There is evidence aplenty from numerous sources in that chapter, damning evidence from Vyse's own hand that has never before been seen; new evidence which shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that Colonel Vyse did perpetrate a fraud within the Great Pyramid in 1837, all of which Mr Colavito conveniently and completely ignores thereby giving a wholly false impression of the content of this chapter and, of course, the book.

In this 'review' Mr Colavito has engaged in what can only be described as a form of deception, Hooke, lying by omission, and you, in your support of Mr Colavito's 'review', have now made yourself complicit in that deception. I am more than happy to discuss my work, warts and all, with those who present it accurately and fairly but I will tell you this also--hell will freeze over first before I discuss my work with those who are bent on distorting it for their own ends.

Until next time.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Some additions to my reply to this:

Are you absolutely sure Colonel Vyse, a proven fraudster, is telling us everything about the accusation of 10th April?

Do you have any evidence that he is keeping information back about the “slanderous paragraph”? You seem to think that absence of absolute certainty entitles you to fill the gap with whatever you like.

And, as we know, he was not, and is not, a “proven fraudster”.

Are you absolutely sure Vyse hasn’t edited out here other serious allegations made against him?

I have no trouble at all in discounting alleged allegations. Show us some evidence of the facts behind these allegations. Show us some evidence that the allegations are true.

Regards,

Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Hello Scott,

You quote Jason Colavito:

JC: ”...if you'd like to know his evidence, it is this: (a) Vyse is a bad person whom no one liked and who committed fraud in other contexts, and (b) the German fringe people who scraped part of the red paint off of the relieving chambers last year claim that carbon dating found that the paint was only 200 years old, but the lab they said did the test refused to confirm their claim. Therefore, the name of Khufu is a fake and everyone is covering up the truth.”

... Day 7 Magazine claims that the material had been radiocarbon tested by a German laboratory and that the paint was found to be only centuries old. Alas, when I contacted the German laboratory involved to ask them to confirm this report, they refused to confirm or deny anything. (Secret Chamber, “Gunpowder and Plot: A Final Note:” )

So what did the laboratory say in their reply to you?

I will tell you this also--hell will freeze over first before I discuss my work with those who are bent on distorting it for their own ends.

If Vyse were to come back to life and read your comments, I can imagine him saying something very similar.

Until next time.

By all means ... Hasta la vista,

Hooke

a reply to: Hooke

Hooke: And, as we know, he was not, and is not, a “proven fraudster”.

SC: Vyse IS a proven fraudster--just not a convicted one. The proof of his electoral fraud only came out about 15 years after he died.

Hooke: I have no trouble at all in discounting alleged allegations. Show us some evidence of the facts behind these allegations. Show us some evidence that the allegations are true.

SC: See Chapter Six of my book, 'The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids'. Mr Colavito entirely censored the evidence I present in my book of Vyse's Great Pyramid fraud from his 'review'. And, you'll be disappointed to know, there will be much more evidence presented in my forthcoming book: 'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co., 2016).

I think we're done now.

Regards,

SC

Duplicate deleted.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Hello Scott,

Hooke: I have no trouble at all in discounting alleged allegations. Show us some evidence of the facts behind these allegations. Show us some evidence that the allegations are true.


SC: See Chapter Six of my book, 'The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids'.

Chapter Six says:

... Vyse's published work remains silent on these key questions ...

SC: Mr Colavito entirely censored the evidence I present in my book of Vyse's Great Pyramid fraud from his 'review'. .

No, he didn't. He couldn't find any. And neither could anyone else.

SC: And, you'll be disappointed to know, there will be much more evidence presented in my forthcoming book: 'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co., 2016)

Why would I be disappointed? Why would I not be delighted by the presentation of evidence?

Especially as you've presented so little hitherto ...

Regards,

Hooke

a reply to: Hooke

Hooke: Especially as you've presented so little hitherto ...

SC: A familiar tactic by those of a blinkered mainstream persuasion--if you can't deal with the evidence, just pretend it doesn't exist in the hope that it will somehow go away. You're kidding yourself, Hooke, and you know you are.

There is considerable, compelling new evidence presented in my book which shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that Colonel Vyse perpetrated a fraud in the Great Pyramid in 1837. That you side with Colavito's view of a paucity of evidence (Colavito's point 'a' and 'b') won't actually change the fact that there is much much more new evidence put forth in that chapter of my book and, I have to say, it speaks volumes that neither you or Mr Colavlito has felt able to even acknowledge this new evidence let alone deal with it.

And keep this in mind too. When people pick up my book to read, they will see the evidence that I present is much more than Colavito's points 'a' and 'b'; they will see the evidence he and you refuse to even acknowledge is there. And in that moment they will know that you are a blatant liar.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I agree with you fully. Erosion, marine fossil records, weathering. Everything points to a creation point far earlier than mainstream predicts.

To re-enforce the idea behind cultures living in civilized settlements, we need only look to the recently discovered "Lost City of Dwarka". Located 70+ ft underwater, in the Gulf of Cambay. These ruins are dated to be OLDER than 10,000 years.. before the rise of the sea level, which occurred roughly around the end of the last ice age.

The people of this world have been around far longer then many believe. The history of man will one day be solved. But arrogant leaders and stubborn curators need to be willing to open their minds and accept that once was, may not be fact. But just a moment in our journey of discovering our true past.

We are part of something much larger.

a reply to: Triton1128

Hi Triton1128,

Thank you for your post and information. Totally agree. Human civilisation goes back tens of thousands of years further than is commonly accepted; since before the beginning of the end of the last Ice Age, imo.

Regards,

SC

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Variable

The sphinx is even older than the pyramids. you can tell that from the erosion on it. It happenned when it was wetter.

Some theories from certain people here suggest we might be the 5th itheration of humanity to exist here.

I agree the sphinx looks older because of the erosion, but I don't understand how people seem to forget that the pyramid was covered in casing stones. Wouldn't the erosion would have occurred there, not on the inner layer?