Posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:53 PM
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
BM: You're now lumping the facsimiles made by Hill (which Vyse commissioned) with his journal doodles.
SC: “doodles” with essential elements completely missing—why? And I have always said that BOTH men drew the Khufu cartouche and its crew name with the wrong orientation. I am not suddenly “lumping” the drawings of the two together. I have always made the point—and will continue to—that it is unlikely in the extreme that BOTH men would draw both the cartouche (and its crew name) with the wrong orientation. That they BOTH did so strongly suggests that they both made their drawings from a source outwith Campbell’s Chamber; a source that had these glyphs aligned horizontally, had two small marks under the snake glyph and had no hatch lines in the disc.
BM: Ultimately what it comes down to, is you are latching onto any minute difference between the actual inscriptions/cartouches on the walls of the relieving chambers and Vyse's depictions of those in his journal, which he obviously drew by hand, as some basis that those minute differences indicate a fraud, that the sketches and doodles and facsimiles somehow precipitated the worker graffiti. You've got the cart before the horse.
SC: I rather suggest that what you are latching onto is any flimsy excuse to try and explain away the evidence that is presented here from Vyse’s private journal and from Hill’s facsimile drawings. You have never yet explained why Vyse would doodle two non-essential tiny dots and completely fail to sketch in three essential and much more obvious hatch lines into the disc. And how could he fail to do this TWICE when he tells us, in his own words, that he “minutely examined” Campbell’s Chamber for hieroglyphic markings. This needs to be properly addressed. The scenario I present is entirely logical and consistent with the actual evidence.
BM: I challenge anyone to go up into those chambers with a measuring rod and sketchbook and working by torchlight to make exactly perfect copies of those inscriptions in all their minutia. If 99 people were to try this you would get 99 versions of those sketches.
SC: And yet Vyse was able to observe the two tiny dots under the snake glyph but somehow manages to miss the much more obvious three hatch lines TWICE and did so after “minute examination” of the chambers. Furthermore, given his experience of opening the previous three chambers and finding six other discs (of Khnum-khuf) with markings in the centre (which he draws in his private journal btw), he would have been fully expecting to observe markings within the Khufu cartouche disc. And why finally draw these disc lines in his final cartouche drawing of 16th June 1837 only after his visit to the Tomb of the Trades where he saw such cartouches with hatched discs?
Of course, none of this will seem suspicious to you at all because you simply do not want to accept its devastating implication. Fine. Bury your head in the sand then because this isn’t going to go away.
BM: Vyse drew what he felt he needed to draw in his journal to help him with his studies.
SC: Deal with the ACTUAL evidence and not how you think Vyse felt. You have no idea how Vyse felt. You weren’t there in 1837 to ask him how he “felt”.
BM: Just because they do not capture perfectly every last detail is no reason to allege he was a fraud, the guy was not a camera but a human being, and he was working under difficult circumstances.
SC: It sure as hell is highly suspicious. And doubly so coming from someone known to have committed fraud earlier in his life.
BM: When it comes to the Khufu cartouche from Campbell's Chamber, I think he drew them as you would read them, with UP orientated UP. Both the Tomb of the Trades cartouche and the Campbell's Chamber cartouche were drawn by Vyse orientated UP.
SC: And there you go again—fingers stuck firmly in ears, shouting “La, la, la, la…” at the top of your voice. You can “think” what you like but the evidence begs to differ. In every case Vyse & Hill drew what they saw and maintained the correct orientation of what they were looking at with the single exception of the Khufu cartouche and its crew name in Campell’s Chamber. Why would they do that?
As we note the evidence for the Whitewash applied in the chambers at build
With Red Ochre graffiti over top the Whitewash.
This...and now evidence of Red Ochre paint runs.
With this detail** in view...Bring to readership Scott Creighton research on
Vyse Journal and the graffiti records of Hill and others who copied the chamber Graffiti
Scott points out that twice in Vyse journal he leaves the circle empty
Yet records the dots under the Viper....then adds the hatching to the circle.
Vyse said he/they studied the chamber to minute detail.
These debate points are enlarged upon having Scott's books.
Readership can follow debate here or on other forums.
I find the Apologetic and excuse making by the Egyptology side to be obvious.
It's agenda driven.
No matter what Scott or any other presents...it's wrong. ..everything is fine.
A detective learns to notice signatures in evidence which points to motive and crime.
The many signatures that these chambers were altered is present.
Egyptology maintains the graffiti goes on at the quarry.
Well...that changes for sure if they want to 11:59 rescue this.
As the Robert Temple images note....they are badly drawn ...incomplete and overtly large.