Investigating the "Lost 4th Pyramid" at Giza

a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: These particular issues presently under discussion are already in the public domain and have been for quite some time – some even before HOAX was published.

So why, on an earlier occasion, did you pointedly refuse to discuss issues “already in the public domain” which you yourself had raised in preceding posts - on the very grounds that “I am NOT here to recite to you chapter and verse what I've written in my previous book ...”

SC: So—what’s your point?

Your inconsistency would be one.

SC: I discuss what I feel like discussing when I feel like discussing it. I don’t think there are any rules around that.

Yet when I follow a similar policy, your response is a peremptory demand that I discuss the “evidence” you want discussed, concluding with “What are you AFRAID OF?”

SC: He did no such thing (well perhaps but only in your head).

To assess for themselves the truth of the matter, all readers need do is to look.

SC: You rather conveniently leave out the responses to Dr T.

As you rather conveniently now leave out his response to your response.

However, I’m sure that readers can follow the thread if they want to.

SC: Here’s what Jon Snape had to say ...

I think you would need to find more credible sources.

SC: I don’t actually discount that these two marks cross-reference each other ...

It must have slipped your mind to mention this earlier. I omit your farrago of pure speculation.

SC: But that is my explanation for all these marks. What’s yours? Why is Vyse cross-referencing these two disks on this page? What’s the purpose of the reference strokes?

The clue is in the phrase “cross-referencing”: Vyse’s reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche, much as he keyed together two illustrations of its initial character with what may be a ‘1’ or a prime mark.

This is what is sometimes called “inference to the best explanation.” What makes the explanation better than your farrago of nonsense is simplicity, economy and consistency with just plain common sense.

SC: The simple truth of the matter here, Hooke, is that there is no logical reason why Vyse would have dawn that centre page Khufu cartouche without the striations ...

And here you go second-guessing Vyse's thoughts, which must of necessity have been in conformity with logic as you understand it - in other words, mindreading, as noted in this recently cited post of more than five years ago.

You will notice that that post comments on other things you are still parading as “evidence,” as does the following post.

Everywhere but in your head, your “Tomb of Trades” fantasy was debunked on its first appearance, before it turned up in The Secret Chamber of Osiris, never mind HOAX.

SC:At the end of the day, Hooke, we’re never going to agree on this—for sure. But as I’ve always said—all you have to do is present incontrovertible proof that the marks in those chambers are authentic and you will have falsified my argument.

Word to the wise: demanding “incontrovertible proof” debunks what you were trying to put across with “abductive reasoning” - while for those of us who discount trivial evasions, your assertions have been falsified already.

However, as has been explained to you on more than one occasion, relevant evidence has been presented in The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer. The Tomb of Trades (G 6020) is discussed in Pt. I, Ch. 13; Pt. II, Ch. 24; and Appendix 1. Your own theories are addressed in detail in Pt. II, Chs. 25 and 26.

Oh, and don’t forget the Journal of Merer. Merer headed up one of the fifteen phyles engaged in transporting stone along the Nile to the Great Pyramid prior to Khufu’s death in 2483 BC; phyles also formed the construction-crews who worked on putting the stone blocks into place at the pyramid. The cartouche of the name “Khnum-Khufu” appears as part of a crew name in Merer’s logbook; the same cartouche (as part of a crew-name) is also to be found in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber. Such consistency is considered in discussions of “abductive reasoning” to be one of the virtues of a “good” theory.

a reply to: Hooke

[Irrelevant, flim-flam diversions and pedantry snipped]

SC: But that is my explanation for all these marks. What’s yours? Why is Vyse cross-referencing these two disks on this page? What’s the purpose of the reference strokes?

H: The clue is in the phrase “cross-referencing”: Vyse’s reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche, much as he keyed together two illustrations of its initial character with what may be a ‘1’ or a prime mark.

SC: Eh—no. Vyse clearly knew they were the “same cartouche” (i.e. the cartouche from Campbell’s Chamber). He specifically tags them both with text saying they are from Campbell’s Chamber. So why would he also need these X marks above the disks as a “reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche”?

H: This is what is sometimes called “inference to the best explanation.” What makes the explanation better than your farrago of nonsense is simplicity, economy and consistency with just plain common sense.

SC: Ahem—see above. Vyse already knows these cartouches are both from Campbell’s by labeling them as such. He doesn’t need a cross-reference ‘X’ to indicate that. Thus the ‘X’ must serve some other purpose. Any other ideas?

SC: The simple truth of the matter here, Hooke, is that there is no logical reason why Vyse would have dawn that centre page Khufu cartouche without the striations ...

H: And here you go second-guessing Vyse's thoughts, which must of necessity have been in conformity with logic as you understand it …

SC: He does this not once, but twice. On two occasions Vyse draws the Khufu cartouche in his journal without the striations. And yet in both of those cartouche drawings he is careful to add in the tiny detail under the snake glyph. We can reasonably infer from this that Vyse is detail conscious. And yet he presents no such detail within the disk of these two cartouches. The only time in his journal when we see this detail is the entry at the foot of the page in the margin, when he eventually realized it was needed (from having seen other examples of the Khufu cartouche with disk striations, most likely from sketches made by Mr Perring from TotT).

H: … in other words, mindreading, as noted in this recently cited post of more than five years ago.

SC: It’s called “abductive reasoning”, Hermione. Here:

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction]) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations and then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely." One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation…” – from en.wikipedia.org...

SC: There are a set of observations on that page from Vyse’s private journal and I consider my explanation of them to be the best explanation—editing a cartouche. Given all the other anomalies I have uncovered with regards to Vyse’s activities at Giza, imo, the man perpetrated a fraud in those chambers. I simply present my interpretation of the evidence and leave it to my readers to decide for themselves whether they agree (or not), whether Vyse is guilty (or not).

You, on the other hand, claim Vyse is entirely innocent. You are now trying to present an alternative interpretation of this particular item of evidence (i.e. the 16th June private journal entry). That’s good—I applaud you for that effort. I am sure there will be some who agree with your ‘take’ on that page. But there will be others who agree with my interpretation of it. Merely presenting an alternative interpretation of this page will not prove my interpretation wrong. To do that you will need incontrovertible proof that the marks in those chambers are authentic. Then, and only then will you have falsified my interpretation of the evidence. You can argue all you like against my interpretation of the evidence, you can put forth your own interpretation but that will achieve precisely nothing. As stated now several times here and elsewhere, if you want to fully exonerate Vyse from these charges you need to get incontrovertible proof that all the marks in those chambers are authentic. Without that proof all we will end up doing is arguing endlessly for decades to come about who has the best interpretation of the various anomalies we find in the available evidence. I, for one, have better things to be doing with those decades.

H: Everywhere but in your head, your “Tomb of Trades” fantasy was debunked on its first appearance, before it turned up in The Secret Chamber of Osiris, never mind HOAX.

SC: You can continue to believe that if you wish, but it won’t make it true. But if it helps you sleep at night. As I briefly mentioned in a post elsewhere in this thread, even if every single Khufu cartouche disk in the TotT is blank, you STILL have to give a convincing explanation for the striations in Birch’s reassembly of Perring’s original drawing. They STILL have to be properly explained. A block cutter wouldn’t simply add those striations to those disks if they weren’t already in the source drawing since:

a) It would fundamentally change the sign.
b) It would give the cutter more work.

Those Khufu cartouches with the striated disks came from somewhere. If not the Tomb of the Trades (which is the source Vyse states in Operations), then where?

SC: At the end of the day, Hooke, we’re never going to agree on this—for sure. But as I’ve always said—all you have to do is present incontrovertible proof that the marks in those chambers are authentic and you will have falsified my argument.

H: Word to the wise: demanding “incontrovertible proof” debunks what you were trying to put across with “abductive reasoning” - while for those of us who discount trivial evasions, your assertions have been falsified already.

SC: I have always taken the view that, since all of the actors in this saga have long since departed this Earth, that it will be virtually impossible to prove Vyse’s guilt beyond any doubt. I think, however, upon consideration of all the evidence and the anomalies we find therein, it is reasonable to assert that, on the balance of probability, Vyse most probably did perpetrate a fraud in those chambers. Simply saying my “assertions have been falsified already” won’t actually make that so. If that is the case then you will be able to show where that has occurred. All of the links you have posted thus far where you claim I’ve been debunked have been found to be baseless claims that were easily countered.

----> More

....continued:

H: However, as has been explained to you on more than one occasion, relevant evidence has been presented in The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer. The Tomb of Trades (G 6020) is discussed in Pt. I, Ch. 13; Pt. II, Ch. 24; and Appendix 1. Your own theories are addressed in detail in Pt. II, Chs. 25 and 26.

SC: Alas, my theories are constantly evolving as new evidence surfaces and have done so since the publication of your book thus your book is most likely out-of-date.

H: The cartouche of the name “Khnum-Khufu” appears as part of a crew name in Merer’s logbook; the same cartouche (as part of a crew-name) is also to be found in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber.

SC: LOL.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

www.abovetopsecret.com...

SC: Eh—no. Vyse clearly knew they were the “same cartouche” (i.e. the cartouche from Campbell’s Chamber). He specifically tags them both with text saying they are from Campbell’s Chamber. So why would he also need these X marks above the disks as a “reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche”?

... Vyse already knows these cartouches are both from Campbell’s by labeling them as such. He doesn’t need a cross-reference ‘X’ to indicate that. Thus the ‘X’ must serve some other purpose. Any other ideas?

So, finally you acknowledge that they are both captioned as being from Campbell’s Chamber. You once had some difficulty with that and needed help on the point.

How many cartouches could there be in Campbell’s Chamber? There’s plenty of room and there is at least one other (partial) cartouche. Do try to remember that this was a recent discovery and likely not as familiar to Vyse as it is to you, after years of poring over the products of his efforts.

It was redundant (according to you) and pendantic to add this mark - so there “must” have been another reason? Doubtless a very, very wicked one. Allow me to point out that your “must” is predicated entirely upon another instance of your mindreading; sorry to have to say this, but your mindreading has no credibility whatsoever.

You seem to have forgotten (despite my recent reminder) that Vyse also keyed together two sketches (on differing scales) of the initial character. Why aren’t you querying that? It’s just as redundant.

Ahem.

More mindreading omitted.

SC: ... (from having seen other examples of the Khufu cartouche with disk striations, most likely from sketches made by Mr Perring from TotT).

Where may we see such examples? I can only regard this as puzzling, as all evidence coming from “the Tomb of (the) Trades” (G 6020, the mastaba of Iymery) shows the relevant hieroglyph without “striations,” in all instances, a point I have already supported with citations and photographs. Your response to being shown the photographic images you failed to find yourself was to wave your hands and declare that they were of the wrong inscriptions, despite their being the only ones in the evidence which match Birch’s transcription. Perhaps Perring and Vyse saw magic inscriptions, much like the magic secret cache.

To assist you further, here is the relevant epigraphy.

Giza Mastabas 5 - 1

Giza Mastabas 5 - 2

From Lepsius, Denkmaeler - 1

From Lepsius, Denkmaeler - 2

SC: It’s called “abductive reasoning”, Hermione. Here: ...

A phrase of which your use is entirely rhetorical, as here. If you knew what you were talking about, you would have picked up one or two hints in my post that I do.

SC: There are [sic] a set of observations on that page ...

Empty verbosity omitted.

Sorry, but you do not get to stipulate what counts as a refutation.

SC: You can continue to believe that if you wish, but it won’t make it true. But if it helps you sleep at night. As I briefly mentioned in a post elsewhere in this thread, even if every single Khufu cartouche disk in the TotT is blank, you STILL have to give a convincing explanation for the striations in Birch’s reassembly of Perring’s original drawing. They STILL have to be properly explained. ...

You may continue to believe that if you wish, but it won’t make it true.

It’s because it's a transcription, Scott - a "systematic representation in written form" - not an exact facsimile. It's simply not fair - in fact, it's deceptive - to persist in misrepresenting it to readers who might know no better.

This is the proper explanation. Again, you do not get to stipulate what counts as one.

SC: ... A block cutter wouldn’t simply add those striations to those disks if they weren’t already in the source drawing ...

What on earth are you talking about? It was the job of the woodcut artist to reproduce what Birch had written or drawn. Of course it was. For Birch, however, it was merely a couple of strokes of the pen. Why are you confusing the two?

Are you really going to tell us that Birch sweated blood to represent the hieroglyphs accurately?

Operations, II, p. 8, footnote.

One of the jobs of transcription is to disambiguate: to make it clear which character was intended. Two quick strokes of the pen was enough to do this, whereas it is not what we see in hieroglyphs of the period.

SC: Those Khufu cartouches with the striated disks came from somewhere. If not the Tomb of the Trades (which is the source Vyse states in Operations), then where?

The source Vyse states? Again, what on earth are you talking about?

Allow me to remind you that in December 2009 and January 2010, you were touting the cartouche of Khufu copied by Vyse in “the Tomb of the Trades” as a cartouche of “Ra-ufu.” You knew perfectly well then and you know perfectly well now that he recorded the initial character as a blank disc. The only way you are conjuring “striated disks” into “the Tomb of the Trades” is through an illegitimate inference from Birch’s transcription.

SC: ... All of the links you have posted thus far where you claim I’ve been debunked have been found to be baseless claims that were easily countered.

You would say that, wouldn’t you?

All anyone need do to assess the truth of this is to follow the links and consider the relative merits of claims and counterclaims.

Hooke: The cartouche of the name “Khnum-Khufu” appears as part of a crew name in Merer’s logbook; the same cartouche (as part of a crew-name) is also to be found in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber.

SC: LOL.

Not sure you should be laughing: see “Ra-ufu” above. Odd how you left out the bit about “abductive reasoning” and the virtues of a “good” theory.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
....continued:

SC: Alas, my theories are constantly evolving as new evidence surfaces and have done so since the publication of your book thus your book is most likely out-of-date.

So, all we need do is to wait, and you will debunk your theories yourself - which gives us little reason to take them seriously now.

Did you think this through before posting?

When you made this claim a year ago on the Graham Hancock Message Board, it elicited a response - and as we know, responses reliably find claims to be baseless.

Not our job to second-guess your every change of mind. Views so fickle were obviously ill-founded in the first place.

Sorry if this offends your vanity, but Strange Journey is not all about you.

Where we mention you at all, we cite sources. The views addressed are those documented.

As for you own most recent book:

On any serious criterion, HOAX is in need of pulping. At least the pulp might be of some use.

You have outlined your theory of “new evidence surfacing” in podcasts, haven’t you? To another response.

It must be said that we see little sign here of your theories having “evolved.” Same old, same old, more like.

Have you never heard of Schrödinger’s cat? This concerns:

a hypothetical cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead

If one were to open the box, one would find the cat either alive or dead. But, to find out, you first have to open the box … and, if the box isn’t opened, no one will ever know, one way or the other, whether the cat is alive or dead.

If you don’t look at the discussion of your theories in Strange Journey, you never will get to know whether you were wrong … or perhaps right all the time.

a reply to: Hooke

SC: Eh—no. Vyse clearly knew they were the “same cartouche” (i.e. the cartouche from Campbell’s Chamber). He specifically tags them both with text saying they are from Campbell’s Chamber. So why would he also need these X marks above the disks as a “reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche”?

... Vyse already knows these cartouches are both from Campbell’s by labeling them as such. He doesn’t need a cross-reference ‘X’ to indicate that. Thus the ‘X’ must serve some other purpose. Any other ideas?

H: So, finally you acknowledge that they are both captioned as being from Campbell’s Chamber. You once had some difficulty with that and needed help on the point.

SC: Hermione, I seriously suggest you get your facts straight before making stupid comments:

SC: Stower then alleges I did not see the caption "in Campbell's Chamber" in Vyse's journal entry. I suggest he did not properly read my 'Atlantis Rising' article, particularly page 70 where I write:

“...On June 16 (over 3 weeks later) he draws the plain blank disc again from the chamber (we know this because of the two dots under the snake and also because Vyse writes alongside 'in Campbell’s Chamber')."

SC: So, far from missing the caption alongside the disputed cartouche as Stower alleges, the caption is there and is used by me in the article to demonstrate the contradiction Vyse presents on this page between the two cartouches i.e. how he has drawn a Khufu cartouche with blank disk from Campbell's Chamber and then draws a Khufu cartouche with hatched disc from Campbell's Chamber. Since there is only one clearly visible Khufu cartouche in this chamber, they cannot both be right. From here.

SC: And your co-author’s response to the above:

MS: My profound apologies for missing this important point. Yes indeed, Creighton does mention this on page 70 of the magazine. From here.5

H: How many cartouches could there be in Campbell’s Chamber?

SC: Oh here we go—another desperate attempt by you to shift the goal-posts. Vyse labelled two drawings on that page as being from Campbell’s Chamber. You even agreed they were the "same cartouche":

H: "Vyse’s reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche" (my emphasis).

But when that no longer suits you, you try to invent evidence. How do we know these two labelled cartouches on that page refer to the same cartouche (as you, hitherto, agreed they were):

a) There’s only one FULL Khufu Cartouche in that chamber whereby the disk can be seen. There is no other full cartouche with a disk.
b) Both cartouches he draws present the two dots under the snake glyph. There are no other Khufu cartouches in Campbell’s Chamber which present such a feature—just ONE.

We can thus reasonably infer from the evidence above that we are indeed dealing with one and the same Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber. But yeah—I understand your utter desperation.

H: There’s plenty of room and there is at least one other (partial) cartouche.

SC: Rubbish. The issue is the DISK. See above.

H: Do try to remember that this was a recent discovery and likely not as familiar to Vyse as it is to you, after years of poring over the products of his efforts.

SC: Do try and be sensible. I have to say—this is the absolute WORST defense I have ever witnessed. Seriously, I really never believed you would stoop to such complete and utter baloney. This has truly now opened my eyes to the complete futility of my even discussing this issue with you. You are now seriously trying to suggest that there might be another Khufu cartouche in that chamber with no lines in the disk!!!! You twatter on about me "mind-reading" Vyse and then you come out with this utter bull flop, trying to invent evidence that no one, NO ONE else has ever seen--not Hill, Perring, Rowe, Hawass, Schoch or Dowall. NO ONE reports such a 2nd cartouche (with blank disk) in that chamber. Get a bloody grip of yourself, Hermione!!

If that really is the best response to my point you can come up with then I consider that you are merely here to troll or to take the proverbial piss--wasting my time and everyone else’s. Until you can address my points SERIOUSLY and SENSIBLY then this discussion is over.

[snipped due to the complete and utter stupidity of your preceding comments – not wasting any more of my time with your bonkers notions].

SC

PS – for anyone who doesn’t already know, Hermione (Hooke) is a Director of the ultra-orthodox Egyptology Forum, ‘In the Hall of Ma’at’. (Which perhaps goes some way to explaining the above drivel).

a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Hooke, I seriously suggest you get your facts straight before making stupid comments:

Already addressed in the post to which I linked:

Reviewing Creighton’s article in the light of Creighton’s response, I see that I did indeed miss a couple of things, both of them on the final page (really two thirds of a page) of the article. The more important of these is this: Creighton is aware of the caption “in Campbell’s Chamber” (next to the smaller drawing).

I suggest you pay closer attention to what follows in that post:

Creighton knew perfectly well that the drawing is captioned “in Campbell’s Chamber” when he denied that it was of the inscription in Campbell’s Chamber. He chose (in this earlier part of the article) not to mention the caption. We have to ask why. It was certainly relevant — relevant in the sense that it flatly contradicts what Creighton says. The answer “which suggests itself” is that it didn’t suit his purpose — didn’t suit what he was trying to put over to (or put over on) the reader.

You appear to imagine that the wild self-contradiction of your article (which looks very like an attempt to bamboozle the reader) somehow vindicates it. Sorry, no:

On page 68, you have this:

The second cartouche (Figure 2), also found by Vyse, is presented only in his handwritten journal (he didn’t publish this) and has clearly been found somewhere else since it is slightly different from the cartouche in the Great Pyramid; . . .

On page 70, you have this:

On June 16 (over 3 weeks later) he draws the plain blank disc again from the Chamber (we know this because of the two dots under the snake and also because Vyse writes alongside “in Campbell’s Chamber”).

These referring to the same drawing. You seem to be saying (1) that the cartouche represented is one Vyse found outside the pyramid and (2) that this same cartouche is inside the pyramid.

Perhaps you could explain this apparent contradiction, as I doubt I’m the only one who finds your presentation hard to follow because of it.

SC: Oh here we go—another desperate attempt by you to shift the goal-posts. ...

What’s “desperate” here is your attempt to pass off this banality as “proof” of anything.

For a third time you ignore what surely decides the matter: that Vyse also used a mark to key together sketches of the initial character.

(Mere petulance omitted.)

SC: But when that no longer suits you, you try to invent evidence. ...

SC: ... you come out with this utter bull flop, trying to invent evidence that no one, NO ONE else has ever seen ...

From someone whose case relies crucially on a “proposed secret cache” of inscriptions, these are remarkable statements.

SC: You are now seriously trying to suggest that there might be another Khufu cartouche in that chamber with no lines in the disk!!!!

Another of your inventions: I wrote no such thing.

SC: I have to say—this is the absolute WORST defense I have ever witnessed.

Says you, having contrived it by pulling one sentence out of context.

It’s not a defence, Scott. Nothing you’ve pointed to requires one. It’s an attack, on your silly assumptions and your sorry excuse for an argument.

SC: PS – for anyone who doesn’t already know, [Hooke] is a Director of the ultra-orthodox Egyptology Forum, ‘In the Hall of Ma’at’ …

Although one of its nine boards is devoted to Ancient Egyptian history and archaeology, ‘In the Hall of Ma’at’ is not an Egyptology forum as such. It consists of several discussion boards, whose purpose is to:

consider the evidence for alternative theories of history and science.

The board also hosts a good selection of papers on various subjects; and both the papers and the forum are in the process of being updated. Hall of Ma’at is always pleased to welcome new members who can bring different points of view to the topics under discussion; several contributors to ATS also post on Ma’at.

a reply to: Hooke

(Apologies - formatting problem - I meant the post to read as follows):

On page 68, you have this:

“The second cartouche (Figure 2), also found by Vyse, is presented only in his handwritten journal (he didn’t publish this) and has clearly been found somewhere else since it is slightly different from the cartouche in the Great Pyramid; . . .”

On page 70, you have this:

“On June 16 (over 3 weeks later) he draws the plain blank disc again from the Chamber (we know this because of the two dots under the snake and also because Vyse writes alongside “in Campbell’s Chamber”).”

These referring to the same drawing. You seem to be saying (1) that the cartouche represented is one Vyse found outside the pyramid and (2) that this same cartouche is inside the pyramid.

Perhaps you could explain this apparent contradiction, as I doubt I’m the only one who finds your presentation hard to follow because of it.

a reply to: Hooke

H: On page 68, you have this:

“The second cartouche (Figure 2), also found by Vyse, is presented only in his handwritten journal (he didn’t publish this) and has clearly been found somewhere else since it is slightly different from the cartouche in the Great Pyramid; . . .”

SC: Let’s continue the extract:

“The second cartouche (Figure 2), also found by Vyse, is presented only in his handwritten journal (he didn’t publish this) and has clearly been found somewhere else since it is slightly different from the cartouche in the Great Pyramid; i.e., it has no horizontal lines in the small circle on the right. Had the cartouche in Figure 2 been copied from the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber, then Vyse most surely would have copied the small lines into the plain circle that we observe in the circle of Figure 1. That he did not copy these lines tells us he did not observe such lines in the circle of this cartouche in Figure 2, which implies, of course, that the cartouche in Figure 2 is from a different source than the one in Campbell’s Chamber (Figue 1).”

SC: All I am saying here is that the cartouche in Fig.2 of that AR article (i.e. the Khufu cartouche without the disk striations) was not original to the chamber. Vyse obtained it (without striations) from somewhere other than Campbell’s Chamber. I come to that conclusion because had he actually observed this cartouche on the roof block (as we observe it today) when he made his journal drawings, then he’d almost certainly have seen and copied the disk striations into all his drawings—Vyse was ‘detail conscious’ (he copied the tiny detail of the two dots under the snake glyph). If he is ‘detail conscious’ then why omit the disk striation detail? Why? Because, imo, he wasn’t copying a cartouche FROM Campbell’s Chamber but rather was copying a cartouche INTO Campbell’s Chamber; a cartouche he had acquired from a source where those disk striations were not present. Later, on 16th June, he realised that striations were needed within the blank disk.

H: On page 70, you have this:

“On June 16 (over 3 weeks later) he draws the plain blank disc again from the Chamber (we know this because of the two dots under the snake and also because Vyse writes alongside “in Campbell’s Chamber”).”

SC: Yes. By now he has copied the cartouche (with blank disk) he had acquired from somewhere outside the pyramid into Campbell’s Chamber.

H: These referring to the same drawing. You seem to be saying (1) that the cartouche represented is one Vyse found outside the pyramid and (2) that this same cartouche is inside the pyramid.

Perhaps you could explain this apparent contradiction, as I doubt I’m the only one who finds your presentation hard to follow because of it.

SC: There’s NO contradiction. In the AR article I am merely showing readers (unfamiliar with this issue) that, on the surface, there appears to be two different original Khufu cartouches in the chamber because Vyse draws two cartouches with different disks on that page of his private journal, stating that both are from Campbell's Chamber. (Note: APPEARS to be two different cartouches in Campbell's Chamber). I then go on to point out to the reader that this cannot be the case because it would be virtually impossible to have two original Khufu cartouches in that chamber that would each present an identical 'mistake' (i.e. the two splashes of paint under the snake glyph) in the same place. I then tell the reader that what we actually have is not, in fact, two different original cartouches at all in that chamber but a before and after edit of just one original cartouche on that page of his journal (as a result of some epiphany)--two occasions in his journal he draws the Khufu cartouche without striations and finally he shows one occasion of the cartouche (post disk epiphany) now edited to include the disk striations. As I said--I present it this way only for the benefit of readers who may not have been familiar with the issue.

The short explanation that you need to understand is simply this:

(1) Vyse obtains a Khufu cartouche (with blank disk) somewhere outside the pyramid. (2) He copies that cartouche (with blank disk) into the pyramid. (3) Later, around 16th June, realising a change is required, he modifies the blank disk in this cartouche by adding the striations, thereby giving us what we observe in the chamber to this very day. This scenario, imo, best explains the contradictory cartouches Vyse draws in his journal and all those edit marks on that page of his journal of 16th June 1837 when he realised a change was needed to the blank cartouche disk that would have been present on the wall of the chamber on that date.

How difficult can this be to understand?

SC

a reply to: Hooke

H: For a third time you ignore what surely decides the matter: that Vyse also used a mark to key together sketches of the initial character.

SC: Here it is:



What exactly does this decide and explain exactly how it decides anything? What's your explanation for these vertical strokes (cross-reference marks in the yellow highlight box)? Why is this "keying together" even having to be done by Vyse? What purpose does it serve?

Let's hear it.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Let’s continue the extract:

I am not sure what you imagine you’re achieving in doing so, other than confirming that in presenting this speculation, you chose not to mention that the drawing in question is captioned “in Campbell’s Chamber.” The paragaph you reproduce is (by my count) the 14th of the article, whereas it is not until the 23rd that you get round to mentioning the caption (and it takes close attention to notice that when you do so you are talking about the same drawing in Vyse’s journal that you talked about earlier).

SC: All I am saying here is that the cartouche in Fig.2 of that AR article (i.e. the Khufu cartouche without the disk striations) was not original to the chamber. Vyse obtained it (without striations) from somewhere other than Campbell’s Chamber. ...

Which is fantasy. You can’t even point to the “somewhere other than Campbell’s Chamber” where Vyse supposedly “obtained” it. All you can do is “propose” a “secret cache” of inscriptions, discovered by Vyse in secret and kept secret by him on having instantly recognised its potential as a forger’s resource. No one is obliged to take such stuff seriously. I’d say you’d made it up, were it not that we know that it was Alan Alford who came up with this desperation hypothesis.

SC: Yes. By now he has copied the cartouche (with blank disk) he had acquired from somewhere outside the pyramid into Campbell’s Chamber.

If we may properly read the caption “in Campbell’s Chamber” as “in Campbell’s Chamber now, having been copied there from somewhere outside the pyramid,” then it’s odd that you chose to withhold it from the reader until the 23rd paragraph of 26. I am sure you know perfectly well that no one would read it so.

Insisting that something whose simple, natural reading is perfectly innocent be read in some other way is an epitome of your method.

SC: There’s NO contradiction. ...

You may believe that if you wish, but it won’t make it true. On the contary, you can see the contradiction as well as I can, as evidenced by your contortions in trying to avoid it.

SC: The short explanation that you need to understand is simply this:

(1) Vyse obtains a Khufu cartouche (with blank disk) somewhere outside the pyramid. (2) He copies that cartouche (with blank disk) into the pyramid. (3) Later, around 16th June, realising a change is required, he modifies the blank disk in this cartouche by adding the striations, thereby giving us what we observe in the chamber to this very day.

How difficult can this be to understand?

How difficult is it for you to understand that your speculations have no credibility?

a reply to: Hooke

H: How difficult is it for you to understand that your speculations have no credibility?

SC: When all you can do is whinge about how an article (from a number of years ago) is presented rather than properly address the substantive points raised in the article, then it merely proves you have little to say.

You're welcome, of course, to your opinion. How it must irk you that there are many, however, who agree with my evidence-based "speculations".

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: What exactly does this decide and explain exactly how it decides anything? What's your explanation for these vertical strokes (cross-reference marks in the yellow highlight box)? Why is this "keying together" even having to be done by Vyse? What purpose does it serve?

You want me to explain to you that a cross-reference mark is a cross-reference mark?

If Vyse was a little pedantic and did something which you say he didn’t strictly need to do, it makes him a forger?

This is your argument?

a reply to: Hooke

H: You want me to explain to you that a cross-reference mark is a cross-reference mark?

SC: Typically a cross-reference mark is used in a document to link to further information elsewhere. This cross-reference in Vyse's private journal page gives what additional information exactly? Why does Vyse cross-reference a disk to reference itself? Why would Vyse create a circular reference? Surely you have a reasonable and convincing explanation for:

a) Drawing a striated disk above the cartouche in the foot of the margin and
b) Placing a cross-reference mark beside this striated disk and another beside the one within the cartouche.

So what does this tell Vyse? What information does it give him? You don't just cross-reference something for no apparent reason. So let's hear your answer. Why does Vyse do this and how exactly does it "decide the matter"?


SC

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Scott Creighton

I just find it deeply problematic for the official story of Egypt that there aren't ornate reliefs or furnishings in at least this pyramid, the greatest accomplishment architecturally in human history.

More on the question of why there appear to be no reliefs or paintings in the pyramids of Giza.

Originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

SC: When all you can do is whinge about how an article (from a number of years ago) is presented rather than properly address the substantive points raised in the article, ...

Excuse me? You chose to focus on the article (and ignore every other point raised).

That things you are saying now were debunked “a number of years ago” is the whole point of mentioning the article. The “substantive points raised” were “properly addressed” - which is not the same as “uncritically accepted,” for all you confuse the two.

SC: ... How it must irk you that there are many, however, who agree with my evidence-based "speculations".

Which is merely the fallacy argumentum ad populum, as I’m sure you know very well.

originally posted by: Hooke
Originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

SC: When all you can do is whinge about how an article (from a number of years ago) is presented rather than properly address the substantive points raised in the article, ...

Hermione: Excuse me? You chose to focus on the article (and ignore every other point raised).

That things you are saying now were debunked “a number of years ago” is the whole point of mentioning the article.

SC: Nothing in that article was "debunked" years ago. Or today for that matter. Except perhaps in your delusional mind.

Hermione: The “substantive points raised” were “properly addressed” - which is not the same as “uncritically accepted,” for all you confuse the two.

SC: More delusion AND evasion.

SC: ... How it must irk you that there are many, however, who agree with my evidence-based "speculations".

Hermione: Which is merely the fallacy argumentum ad populum, as I’m sure you know very well.

SC: Further delusion AND evasion.

Your response here Hermione is nothing but COMPLETE EVASION of the questions I have posed you in this thread. You have given no reasonable ANSWERS to my questions because you simply HAVE NO REASONABLE ANSWERS.

The IMMUTABLE FACT here, Hermione, is that Colonel Vyse drew on that page of his private journal of 16th June, 1837, a Khufu cartouche WITHOUT STRIATIONS in the disk and clearly states that this cartouche is "in Campbell's Chamber".

Well, accepting what Vyse tells us in his own hand then a fraud has been perpetrated by Vyse in that chamber because the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber today DOES NOW HAVE those striations in the disk.

You cannot escape from that immutable truth. It is right there in BLACK & WHITE in Vyse's OWN HAND. Those striations did not exist in that cartouche in Campbell's prior to 16th June 1837 and yet they exist there today. FRAUD!!!

NOW DEAL WITH THAT FACT AND STOP EVADING IT.

YOU ARE BEAT. ACCEPT IT.

SC

A reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Typically a cross-reference mark is used in a document to link to further information elsewhere. ...

“Elsewhere” including on the same page.

The single asterisk ... serves to announce a footnote, thus: An asterisk * is a well-established device ... The footnote will begin thus: * Asterisk is a word coming from Greek and literally it means a little star.

It may also indicate that there is an answering note in the margin.

(You have a point there : a guide to punctuation and its allies, Eric Partridge, 1953: 83)

Have you never seen a footnote? A figure reference? An asterisk?

What about this example?

There, the lightly-pencilled numbers 2, and 1, beneath the ends of supposed wooden construction-beams in Vyse's sketch on the right, refer to numbers 1 and 2 in his notes.

originally posted by: Hooke
A reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Typically a cross-reference mark is used in a document to link to further information elsewhere. ...

Hermione: The single asterisk ... serves to announce a footnote, thus: An asterisk * is a well-established device ... The footnote will begin thus: * Asterisk is a word coming from Greek and literally it means a little star.

It may also indicate that there is an answering note in the margin.

SC: I'm sure most of us know what a footnote is and how it's used. That is NOT what is being asked of you to answer, though I suspect you know that perfectly well and are conveniently going down the silly route in order to evade answering my actual question.

Explain to the Forum what, in your view, the "answering note" the 'footnote' might have provided Vyse here. What additional information is it providing to him here? It must serve some informative purpose else why would Vyse have made it?

SC