> The Runny Red Ochre Cartouche of Khufu in
> Campbell's Chamber indicates it's painted in
The runny cartouche in your imagination was painted in Creighton’s.
The runny cartouche in Creighton’s imagination indicates that he made it up.
> Excerpt comment by Scott Creighton / The The Great
> Pyramid Hoax -ATS
> The cartouche is there. The end ‘rope’ is
> there. The snake is there. The quail chics are
> there. The disc is there. Two dots are there (why
> these two dots and none of the others remains a
> mystery). Vyse draws what he believes are all the
> essential elements of the cartouche—except he
> entirely MISSES the essential element of the
> hatched lines. It is one thing making a
> representative or rough drawing of something—it
> is an entirely different issue when one misses out
> a very obvious element of what one is supposed to
> be copying. And he does it in his private journal
> not once but TWICE. Now you may be happy to put
> this down to a simple oversight—I am not and I
> rather think many others will take my view. If the
> lines were there why not make a doodle or rough
> drawing of them? Vyse didn’t because they
> WEREN’T there. They were only added after Vyse
> realized (from his visit to the Tomb of the
> Trades) that the lines were required—and he then
> had them added. That is what all his deliberations
> in his private journal of 16th June 1837 were
Again, which planet have you been on and which one are you on now? When Creighton tried this BS on this board—and Above Top Secret as quoted—and Unexplained Mysteries as quoted—he was torn to shreds.
On the very same page of Vyse’s manuscript is a larger drawing of the cartouche of Khufu—and this does show the lines within the intial character. The simple explanation of their absence from the smaller drawing is that it is a smaller drawing. When Creighton tried to weasel his way around this with a deceptive image, he was blown into fragments by the good Doctor Troglodyte:
This is what Creighton does: he trials his stuff on the boards, is torn to shreds—and then goes into print like nothing has happened.
Why are you reposting this discredited BS?
> Scott Creighton comment/ Unexplained Mysteries
> forum /GP Hoax
> Do not misunderstand what I am saying here. Walter
> Allen tells us that his great-grandfather
> Humphries Brewer who apparently worked with Vyse
> at Giza in 1837 had a dispute with Raven and
> Hill—Vyse’s assistants—about painting marks
> in the pyramids. “Feint marks were repainted,
> some were new.”
> Now then....if we go back to the near beginning of
> the Forgery Challenge.
> We find Sitchin forward the above quote of Scott's
> of Humphries Brewer.
Sorry, what? Forgery Challenge? What is this?
As usual, you are operating at (if not beyond) the limit of coherence.
How is Creighton’s statement (about Humphries Brewer) supposed in any way to corroborate Sitchin’s? Sitchin is Creighton’s entire source for this material—and contra the false impression you’ve gained from Creighton’s ambiguous presentation, the quote above is not of Humphries Brewer but of notes made by Walter Allen, supposedly in 1954. We may note in passing that Allen spelt “faint” correctly.
If “orthodoxy” cited something this weak, you’d be over it like a rash.
The rest is SNIPPED.