> In clarifying recent comments on this board
> concerning the Great Pyramid, please consider the
> 1. Scott Creighton's
> book, "The Great Pyramid Hoax" headlines that
> there is a conspiracy to conceal the true history
> of Egypt. Is there?
> Apparently Col. Vyse forged a cartouche of Khufu
> in Campbell's Chamber to make it appear that Khufu
> was the builder of the pyramid as no other
> evidence was, or still is, available to verify
> authenticity. Vyse's motive for his alleged
> actions were to achieve some sort of recognition
> and fame in Antiquarian circles.
> Let's, for the sake of argument, accept this to be
> At that time, Vyse knew little or nothing of
> Khufu. Or cartouches. How does a wish for some
> peer accolades equate to a conspiracy to conceal
> the true history of Egypt? Did Vyse know of this
> "true history" beforehand?
As noted passim, if Vyse had had the knowledge it would take to pull this off, that knowledge alone would have gained him all the peer accolades he could wish for, without his taking the crazy risk of engaging in forgery.
Again, on the theory which tries to get round the need for such knowledge, the “proposed secret cache” would in itself have been a major discovery, most likely (for reasons I have outlined elsewhere) in a large and otherwise unknown piece of Old Kingdom architecture—which again would have brought him all the recognition and fame he could wish for, risk-free.
No credible motivation has been suggested for Vyse to have done what the forgery theory has him doing (and Creighton, this goes double for bringing Archbishop Ussher into it).
> 2. In attempting to
> prove this conspiracy, the author publicizes the
> "Examines recent chemical analysis of the marks
> and high-definition photos to reveal errors and
> other anomalies within the forged Khufu
> There is no chemical analysis of the cartouche nor
> any high definition photos of it in the book.
> 3. A poster with the
> handle "Lonely Angel" posted the following on 25
> "Now that the Vyse "evidence" has been
> thoroughly debunked - with no link to Khufu now -
> and the dating of the GP blown wide open, I guess
> the door is open for many more of these
> Again, accepting the Vyse markings to be
> forgeries, how does their addition to the chamber
> change the date of construction of the pyramid?
> With no markings as evidence, it could be earlier,
> later or the same.
> 4. On 4 February,
> Lonely Angel posted the following:
> "I said Robert Bauval now accepted Scott's HOAX
> claims. You demanded proof that he said it. I
> provided said proof."
> He cited a radio show titled Paranormal UK Radio
> I have listened to this broadcast and Robert
> Bauval did say that he agreed with Scott Creighton
> as to fake graffiti. But does that give rise to
> having "the dating of the GP blown wide open"?
To labour the obvious, this appeal to the opinion of Robert Bauval is merely an attempt to bamboozle those for whom his opinion has authority—so mere appeal to authority, an informal fallacy.
Reading this again, I’m struck by the melodrama of “demanded proof”. What did I really do? I asked two (2) questions and I made a related observation:
‘In what words exactly did Robert “acknowledge” this? Where may we read or hear them?’
‘Yet neither of you has quoted this acknowledgement, or told us where we may read or hear it for ourselves.’
This was enough to prompt action.
The poster formerly known as “Alcibiades” answered my second question, so the second part of my observation (correct when I made it) no longer applies. As for my first question (and the first part of my observation), as far as I know, no one other than me has transcribed the key remark:
“I’ve just had a long talk with, er (cough) . . . Scott Creighton . . . At first I was very sceptical, but he, he convinced me. I had a long, long talk, just before I, you came online . . .”
It seems we may be assured on this basis that Robert was convinced by sound arguments and has held the same opinion ever since.
> 5. Robert Bauval states
> on his website the following:
> "In my book The Orion Mystery published in
> 1994, Plate 15a shows precisely the same stellar
> alignment used by Kate Spence, with Ancient
> Egyptian stellar-deities superimposed.
> This alignment and others were used by me to date
> the Great Pyramid to c.2450 BC, plus or minus 25
> years, thus within a range of 2430 BC to 2470 BC.
> It is generally agreed that a plus or minus
> tolerance of 20 arc seconds should be taken into
> account for naked-eye observations of stars, hence
> the need for a ±25 years deviation."
> It would appear not. Bauval's calculations agree
> with mainstream opinion.
> 6. If Scott Creighton
> is relying on Robert Bauval to corroborate the
> central premise of "Hoax", ie somehow there is
> "a conspiracy to conceal the true history of
> Egypt", his hopes are in vain.
> 7. Lonely Angel's
> opinion of the work of Scott Creighton, and his
> overblown viewpoints are not universally shared.
> Hard evidence is required.