Fraud in the Great Pyramid - Further Evidence (Nelson's Chamber)

Hi ATS,

Continuing my research into the private journal of Colonel Howard Vyse who reputedly discovered the famous cartouche of Khufu (and other painted marks) within the Great Pyramid in 1837.

Over the years, as I wrestled with the cryptic handwriting in Colonel Vyse’s private journal (sometimes for days and even weeks on end), slowly but ever so surely the ‘fog’ clouding his near impenetrable script gradually receded, revealing ever more insights from his writings that have gone unseen for almost two hundred years.

On the 25th April, 1837, Nelson’s Chamber became the second of the small ‘chambers’ that Colonel Vyse blasted his way into and in his official published account of that day, he describes what he found when he first entered this chamber:



As you can see in the extract above from Col. Vyse's published account, on 25th April, the very day he opened this chamber which he subsequently named 'Nelson's Chamber' he claims that he found, "Several quarry marks inscribed in red upon the blocks, particularly on the western side."

Prior to the discovery of the painted quarry marks Vyse notes here in this chamber on 25th April, 1837, only one other example of similar painted marks had apparently been made within the Great Pyramid (in Wellington's Chamber - see The Great Pyramid Hoax for more on this) and, as such, the further discovery of these additional inscriptions would naturally have been regarded as a highly important discovery in its own right and, as we might expect, Vyse would have been sure to make note of it in his daily private journal and, as we see above, eventually tell the entire world about it in his published account.

However, as I have come to expect with Colonel Vyse’s writings, things are never quite as straightforward as they might at first appear. When we now consider and compare Vyse’s private account of the very same day—25th April, 1837—what we find described there is a quite different version of events with some glaring and highly significant omissions to the activities of that day:



As we can see from Vyse’s private journal (above) wherein he gives us his unedited, uncensored, private thoughts of that day’s key events and activities, having entered Nelson's Chamber for the first time he makes a few observations about the chamber but, oddly, here in his private account he completely fails to make mention of the presence of any quarry marks on the chamber wall as claimed in his published account of this same day.

And let us be clear here—had painted quarry marks truly been present on the western wall of this chamber when Vyse first entered it, then we can be absolutely certain that the Colonel would not have been remiss or shy in making a note of such an important discovery in his private writings of that day's key events; this would not have been a discovery that could have easily slipped his mind. That Vyse, in his private account, makes no mention on 25th April of such an important discovery (contrary to his published account) strongly suggests that there were, in fact, no marks present in Nelson's Chamber at that time for him to comment upon in his private notes at the end of that day's activities, hence the complete silence therein.

It is only on the 27th April (3 days after the chamber was first opened) that Vyse first mentions quarry marks in Nelson's Chamber in his private account and that is a whole other story which I will be writing about later in a separate article.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Really loving the results of your hard work.

I'm not a scholar myself so haven't got much background to discuss, but there is so much about the whole Giza complex that is steeped in weirdness and secrecy.

The problem you have here is it is all subjective. I completely understand your point, it's hard to imagine the marks not being noted. But lack of evidence is not evidence of anything, if you see what I mean...

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Im sorry for my ignorance but i still am unclear on what these quarry marks lool like and their overall significance.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Hi,

Yes--totally get what you're saying here--absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, you are seeing here just one small piece of evidence in isolation. When you consider the entire body of evidence I have amassed to support the case for forgery, it becomes pretty overwhelming.

Look out for my further piece on this when Vyse first makes note of the quarry marks in this chamber in his private journal. As I said--a whole different story.

Best,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

No, you're right the conclusion is pretty obvious, but I can sense you're still waiting for that smoking gun. Keep up the good work bro!

a reply to: drewlander

Hi,

These quarry marks (with the cartouche of the ancient Egyptian pharaoh Cheops/Khufu) were allegedly found within sealed chambers of the Great Pyramid in 1837 by Colonel Vyse. He had to blast these hidden chambers open with gunpowder. That the cartouche of Khufu was (allegedly) found within the sealed chamber is proof to Egyptology that Khufu built the Great Pyramid ca.2,550 BCE.

My research has uncovered a large body of evidence that strongly supports the theory first proposed by Zecharia Sitchin that Vyse faked the marks himself in these chambers.

You can look at drawings of the marks here and here.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Got it. How would he benefit by forging these? Is there money behind this? What would his motivation be?

a reply to: drewlander

He was a wealthy man, so money would not have been an issue. However, from his published account (3 volumes) we see that he was very keen, almost to the point of desperation it seems, to make an important discovery. He had, after all, spent around $1.3 million (today's terms) in trying to find something really important (such as the true burial of Khufu. Failing that, finding Khufu's name would have been the next best thing).

So, I guess notoriety was a big driver for him and there are some other possible motives which I go into in my previous book on the subject.

SC

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
a reply to: Scott Creighton

No, you're right the conclusion is pretty obvious, but I can sense you're still waiting for that smoking gun. Keep up the good work bro!

Hi,

You may have missed my previous topic on this subject here.

If you missed it, it's worth a read.

Best,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Perhaps. I considered notariety as well, but isnt that your motivation?

Just kiddin!

a reply to: Scott Creighton
Whoops, I answered in the wrong post. I will put it here again.
A few questions come to mind. Being as there was no penetrating radar at that time, how did Vyse know of the hidden chambers?
How did he know how many chambers were there? But more importantly why did he use dynamite, it's not exactly an archaeologists way to discover finds.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Scott Creighton
Whoops, I answered in the wrong post. I will put it here again.
A few questions come to mind. Being as there was no penetrating radar at that time, how did Vyse know of the hidden chambers?
How did he know how many chambers were there? But more importantly why did he use dynamite, it's not exactly an archaeologists way to discover finds.

Hi,

Directly above the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid there is a chamber about the same length and breadth but only about three feet in height to the ceiling. It's called 'Davison's Chamber' and it was discovered in 1765 by the British Consul to Algiers, Nathaniel Davison. This chamber was apparently opened since the pyramid's construction but is not easy to access and Davison only observed the entrance to it by accident. (See my earlier topic on this here). One of Vyse's assistants, Giovani Caviglia who had been working for decades in Egypt before Vyse ever arrived, had apparently been using Davison's Chamber as his living quarters. It is said that one night Caviglia noticed a thin gap between the roof blocks above his head into which he pushed a long stem of grass (or suchlike) and he noticed that it went clean through into a chamber above.

When Caviglia ended teaming up with Vyse, he apparently took Vyse into his confidence and told him of the possibility of another hidden chamber above Davison's. Shortly after learning of this, it seems that Caviglia was given his marching orders by Vyse and Vyse went on to make the discovery of the four hidden chambers for himself.

Keep in mind this was 1837--almost 200 years ago. Archaeology was in its infancy and most explorers were essentially just glorified treasure hunters and didn't care what means they used to get access to tombs / hidden chambers. (It was gunpowder / black powder that Vyse used. Dynamite wasn't patented until 30 years after Vyse blasted his way into these chambers).

When Vyse discovered the first of the hidden chambers he, presumably, would have performed the same test as Caviglia had previously done--forcing a long grass stem between the ceiling blocks. Eventually he reached the upper-most chamber which had a sloping, gabled roof and so Vyse presumed that must be the last chamber in the series.



The 'Vyse Chambers' of the Great Pyramid.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

When we now consider and compare Vyse’s private account of the very same day—25th April, 1837—what we find described there is a quite different version of events with some glaring and highly significant omissions to the activities of that day:



As we can see from Vyse’s private journal (above) wherein he gives us his unedited, uncensored, private thoughts of that day’s key events and activities, having entered Nelson's Chamber for the first time he makes a few observations about the chamber but, oddly, here in his private account he completely fails to make mention of the presence of any quarry marks on the chamber wall as claimed in his published account of this same day.

And let us be clear here—had painted quarry marks truly been present on the western wall of this chamber when Vyse first entered it, then we can be absolutely certain that the Colonel would not have been remiss or shy in making a note of such an important discovery in his private writings of that day's key events; this would not have been a discovery that could have easily slipped his mind. That Vyse, in his private account, makes no mention on 25th April of such an important discovery (contrary to his published account) strongly suggests that there were, in fact, no marks present in Nelson's Chamber at that time for him to comment upon in his private notes at the end of that day's activities, hence the complete silence therein.

It is only on the 27th April (3 days after the chamber was first opened) that Vyse first mentions quarry marks in Nelson's Chamber in his private account and that is a whole other story which I will be writing about later in a separate article.

SC,

I am not certain that your transcription is altogether correct.

Surely, for instance, what you have read as “walls inspected by Mr Raven” is more plausibly read as “was sent for by Mr Raven.” I notice that at other points in your transcription, you indicate uncertainty, but here, it seems, you have full confidence in your reading. Can you really justify this? If Vyse’s handwriting remains as difficult for you as it seems to be (and looking at this sample, it would not be surprising), is it wise to base arguments on his journal at all?

Furthermore, I do not understand why Vyse’s published work would necessarily be a precise reflection of his field notes. For comparison, none of the events mentioned in Reisner's Vol.11.p.021 appear to be found in Mycerinus, his published report. As for Vyse, he seems in writing for publication to have often brought descriptive material forward, giving details (such as dimensions) which were not known on first opening a chamber (say). Had he not done so, the reader would be given next to no word picture of the thing being described. Your entire contention here is that Vyse did not mention the quarry marks (in his personal journal) quite as soon as you say he should have. Surely this is scarcely even a weak argument? Are you not merely scraping the bottom of the barrel here?

Nor has anything you have written recently made it any clearer to me what motivation Vyse would have had for forging any of the inscriptions in the chambers.

Hooke

a reply to: Hooke

While I do not accept your transcription, you are perfectly entitled to your view.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Hooke

Hi Hooke,

Having spent some more time considering your small amendment to my transcription I think, in retrospect, that your change has merit after all. In looking more closely at this particular piece of script I also noticed that there is a comma at the end of what I believed to be the word 'east' which, in retrospect, I realise makes little sense as "east, wall". I believe 'east' is in fact simply the word 'rest'. I have seen it written elsewhere in Vyse's private journal. Yes, his small 'r' can sometimes look like his small letter 'l'. So, here's the updated transcription including your change:



Of course, this small change to the entry of this day in Vyse's journal notwithstanding, the point here is that there is categorically no mention in this day's journal entry of anything remotely about the discovery of any 'characters', 'hieroglyphs', 'figures' or 'quarry marks' on the western wall of this chamber; words in Vyse's handwriting I am very familiar with. There's nothing at all. Vyse remembers to write about mundane events such as having a rest that day, about Mr Perring arriving, having dinner & bed but totally forgets to mention the discovery of a lifetime that day in his private journal? Really?

In my view it is simply inconceivable that Vyse, in his private journal entry of that day, remembers to mention several mundane events from that day and yet completely fails to make any mention of a highly important event i.e. the discovery of 'hieroglyphs' within the chamber. I just do not buy for a nanosecond that, had those marks truly been present on the wall of that chamber on that day, that Vyse would have failed to mention it in his private account on this day while remembering to mention other mundane events from that day. It makes no sense.

And let us not forget either the importance that Vyse himself attached to these painted marks when he later writes:

Notwithstanding that the characters in these chambers were surveyed by Mr. Perring upon a reduced scale, I considered that facsimiles in their original size would be desirable, as they were of great importance from their situation, and probably the most antient inscriptions in existence. I requested therefore Mr. Hill to copy them. His drawings were compared with the originals by Sir Robert Arbuthnot, Mr. Brettel (a civil engineer), Mr. Raven, and myself, and are deposited in the British Museum.” Vyse, Operations, Vol1., p.153

As we can see, the painted characters/inscriptions in these chambers, in Vyse’s stated view, were “...of great importance...” and so much so, in fact, that he had two separate copies of them made (one set by Mr Perring to be used in Vyse’s future book and another by Mr Hill for the British Museum). Later still, on 19th May, the colonel even organised for a group of independent witnesses to attest to the accuracy of Mr Hill’s drawings of the inscriptions he had made from all four of the chambers opened by Vyse.

Thus we can be certain that Vyse would have absolutely known and understood the importance of the marks in this chamber and yet, on the day he first entered that chamber, he writes nothing of it afterwards in his private journal. He says absolutely nothing in this day's journal entry of a 16 foot wide wall filled with painted inscriptions—a private journal where Vyse gives us his innermost thoughts, his very own first-hand account of what truly happened that day. And we have to accept that the private journal, being chronologically closer to the events in question, is more likely to be accurate than a much later revised account for publication.

Quite simply, the omission of this important event from his private thoughts of that day strongly suggests to me that no painted quarry marks were, in fact, present on the western wall of this chamber on the day this chamber was first opened.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to disagree.

SC