> Even in an attempt to clarify and be conciliatory,
> Creighton talks with forked tongue, or with the
> intention to further deceive.
> No not "Khufu/Suphis/Saurid"
> There is no Suphis (Greek: Σοῦφις)
> inscriptions only used by the mysterious Manetho
> thought to be of the Ptolemaic period.
A late pronunciation of (what had been) “Khufu” might have been something like “Shoof” or “Soof”. Add a Greek ending and we get Σοῦφις. It’s not a separate name, just a Grecianised form of the same.
And what is this “I have always accepted” eyewash? That’s not what we find in the Introduction to HOAX. There we are told that “the question as to who really was the builder” has been reopened. Does he think we can’t read?
> > Vyse was a known fraudster and there is much to
> > convince me that he also perpetrated a fraud
> > within the GP.
> No not "known", conveniently concocted by SC
> despite prior clarification. M Stower had provided
> the actual court document reference that the court
> exonerated (found Col. Vyse not guilty) to
> electoral vote corruption based on the fact he had
> broken no law. Whilst almost certainly charitable
> in his electorate, it was and is not unusual and
> is called "pork barrelling" even today as it still
I hadn’t even read this far. So he’s still telling this fib?
Why the flaccid rhetoric of “known fraudster”? What does it mean to say that Vyse was “a known fraudster”, if not that Vyse was known to be a fraudster (which is not true)? He should be saying that Vyse is a known fraudster (which is not true either).
When it’s been put to Creighton that Vyse wasn’t so bad by the standards of his time, Creighton has insisted on the legal (or legalistic) point: Vyse was guilty of a crime. Watch out for his u-turn when it sinks in that he hasn’t this leg to stand on, and keep a bucket handy for when he starts his next bout of moralising.