> Martin Stower Wrote:
> > The clearest example is this one:
> > http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1097177,1097443
> > “. . . Now when you go to look at
> > his private journal, as I did, I managed to track
> > his private journal, his handwritten notes,
> > they’re located in a small archive library, in
> > the North of London. I found these and I was
> > reading through them—I managed to find the first
> > chamber that Colonel Vyse entered was
> > Wellington’s Chamber. This is the first chamber
> > that he managed to blast his way into, with
> > gunpowder. Now when he, visited this chamber on
> > two occasions, on the second occasion, he writes,
> > in his, private notes, that, there was nothing in
> > the chamber that looked like hieroglyphics. Now
> > when Vyse uses the term ‘hieroglyphics’ he’s
> > talking about these quarry marks (Right), and
> > these are the marks that the gangs would paint,
> > their gang name or crew name, onto their block
> > that they cut—they took pride in these, so they
> > made sure that their gang name was stamped on
> > these blocks or painted, onto these blocks. So
> > Vyse tells us that there’s nothing, in, this
> > chamber—Wellington’s Chamber—that looked
> > like that—and then, three years later, we find
> > that his published account, of the very same
> > night, Richard, the very same night—remember
> > this guy’s want to find a cartouche. He writes
> > in his published book, ‘On this night we found
> > the quarry marks.’ (In Wellington’s Chamber.)
> > In Wellington’s Chamber. (The same chamber that
> > he said he found nothing in earlier.) Yes. In his
> > private notes, his private thoughts, of his time
> > at Giza—so we know that’s authentic, that’s
> > his real thoughts—he found nothing—and then in
> > his published book he says he found the quarry
> > marks—and then when you go and look to see,
> > well, what quarry marks had he found, he got, one
> > of his assistants to basically copy, the quarry
> > marks that were allegedly painted in these
> > chambers. I mean you go and look at the quarry
> > marks from Wellington’s Chamber, what do you
> > find? A cartouche—and that’s the very thing
> > Vyse wanted to find, and the remarkable thing is
> > in his private notes there’s not a single
> > mention of him finding a cartouche, and that was
> > the very thing he wanted to find. (Right, so that
> > . . .) There’s no ‘eureka’ moment, nothing,
> > completely silent, and yet he found a cartouche
> > allegedly. (Very suspicious, very
> > suspicious.)”
> > M.
> Hmmm, what are we to make of such?
> So between 25th January 2019 the date of SC
> rather exuberant declaration on "Beyond Reality"
> show were he declares Vyses private journal says
> there wasn't any marks in Wellington's Chamber
> (with hearty chortles ) and now , after
> being challenged reminded he believes some
> graffiti /glyphs are probably genuine (apparently
> always has?), that he chooses the very ones, which
> for years he has gained trash radio mileage out of
> declaring they must have been faked?
It is of course very wrong of us to notice his u-turn.
> Does this mean he has changed his mind and learnt
> Does it mean there are at least two made up
> stories, one for more knowledgeable folk on GHMB
> and a different story for the naïve listeners of
> some wacko CT podcast? ( Oh! and LonelyAngel)
> Why choose Wellington's as the "genuine" is it
> because they are the least legible and least
> damming to his
> HOAX? Or just now scrambling to find some answer
> as to what he thinks is genuine?
It would not entirely surprise me if his next move were to tell us that the “secret cache” is in the chambers themselves.
> "Operations" is rather clear
> that on March 30th 1837 Vyse went into Wellington
> twice and he makes clear it was only in the
> evening after Mr Perring and Mr Mash had arrived
> did they find or confirm they were hieroglyphics.
> Seems to me Vyse knew so little about the subject
> that Perring was the more knowledgeable on
Vyse knew what his guidebook told him. It was quite a good one, Topography of Thebes and General View of Egypt, written by Wilkinson and published in 1835. He had by March 1837 seen quite a few hieroglyphs, but these were hieroglyphs, the carved, formal things. His first impression of the cursive characters (hieratic or closely related to hieratic) roughly painted in red was that they were “nothing like hieroglyphics”—but, he caught on. At one point in the journal, there is a sketch of the cartouche name “Khnum Khufu” in cursive, with hieroglyphic equivalents underneath. Look out for this spun as “Vyse planning forgery” in Creighton’s next opus.
Later in the journal and certainly by the time he was writing all this up for publication, he was calling the “quarry marks” “hieroglyphics”.
Perring most likely knew less than Vyse.
> Somewhere in Operations Vyse does state that
> something to the effect that... it would be good
> to find a cartouche to date the pyramid …..but
> his and all the growing teams interest seems far
> more emphatically interested in other projects
> seemingly with the aim of finding a tomb or burial
> place rather than a cartouche: eg The air shaft
> clearance, Campbells Tomb, The removable of debris
> to find the entrance. The hieroglyphs found on
> backing blocks on South side, barely rate a
> mention or description.
Operations I, p. 238, has this:
“I examined the rocky ground to the westward of the Great Pyramid, and the tombs and buildings to the north
of the Second. Foundations might every where be traced under the sands; and shafts lined with unburnt bricks,
amongst which probably a cartouche might be found, which would determine the date of the constructions. . . .”
“Much information might possibly be obtained from the cartouches on the bricks in the various ruins in Egypt.”
Shafts and bricks, so not the pyramids. He had by this point seen quite a few bricks stamped with cartouches, during his trip to Upper Egypt. He had no reason to expect anything equivalent on the stone blocks of the pyramids. To your shock and amazement, Creighton has misrepresented this, certainly in the podcasts and there grossly.
> Again clearly all 7 Horus name renderings must be
> genuine. No one then (1837) could have forged
> Why fake 10 Khnum Khuf cartouches if the 'grand
> dastardly plan' was to place the more identifiable
> least controversial - Khufu cartouche?
> Hilariously, Creighton suggests to his listeners
> they should look here for more information.!!!
> (If you do, the I recommend search for
> contributions by contributor and expert and
> scholar "Martin Stower" on the subject!)
Where might I find this paragon? I have questions he might help me with.
> Edit to help LA find something to snipe at!!!!