> Yes, oh and sorry i only just read further comments III and
> they are finally clear to me.
> I would say that you are correct on the Vyse marker and also
> that there is not one circle with only a dot in it, Vyse
> clearly scribbled in lines.
> I do still have no idea what Scott's idea is all about and will
> just wait to see what he will present.
This helps me to see how I need to present this. I felt that III was getting nearer the mark.
Scott’s idea: some of it you’ll know, if you’ve followed his past statements on this topic.
He has a narrative in which Vyse found inscriptions outside the pyramid and copied them into the pyramid. This part is cribbed wholesale from the late Alan F. Alford.
To sustain this narrative, he needs to show that Vyse could have known in advance what the cartouche of Khufu looks like. To support this contention, he cites the relevant work of Rosellini, published in 1832. He makes too much of this, through having misunderstood the critique of Sitchin’s claim that Vyse got it from Wilkinson’s Materia Hieroglyphica (1828). No one but a forgery theorist setting up a straw man has ever suggested that Vyse found a previously unknown name.
Back to this idea of inscriptions found outside the pyramid. Scott has persuaded himself that the smaller drawing (cartouche of Khufu with following characters, actually a crew name) is a drawing of one of them. He makes a fuss about the intial character (tiny in the drawing) having no lines in it. (Vyse would have needed a microscope to get lines in there.)
He entirely overlooks (or ignores) the conspicuous caption, “in Campbell’s Chamber”. Combined with the cross-reference symbol, this makes nonsense of his claim that the smaller drawing and the larger drawing are of different inscriptions.
Then he claims that the (allegedly) dotted circle and the lined circle are products of Vyse “deliberating” over which of these details to add to his forgery. (Why would he add either?) For this to be sustained, it has to be a dotted circle. If not, collapse of theory.
Add in the dates and we see that these drawings were made far too late in the day to be evidence of forgery in the planning stage — just two or three days before Vyse sent the last of Hill’s 1:1 “facsimiles” to his contact in London, William Richard Hamilton.
Scott has simply imposed his narrative on the evidence, ignoring or “not seeing” whatever doesn’t fit.