> Not even the pretence of impartiality here. Those
> who’ve followed this with a full and functioning
> set of wits know that (as documented!) it was
> Creighton chose to attach himself to this topic
> and Creighton who’s pursued it “obsessively”
> over ten years at least.
> I say “at least” as no, “it” did not start
> in November 2009; “it” started when Creighton
> first attached himself to the “ancient
> mysteries” genre and began making noises about
> the Giza pyramids being older than the 4th
> dynasty. Anyone remember that his first book
> (soon withdrawn) was something called The
> Giza Oracle? Released November 2006? Not
> The Giza Prophecy, written with Gary Osborn
> and released over five years later.
> Yeah, that’s right, folks: just like all the
> rest, Creighton had a “theory of the pyramids”
> to push and just like all the rest, he found that
> Colonel Vyse’s discovery was an inconvenience.
In support of this point we have the following:
On 4 December 2006, Creighton posted this:
“I am aware of the ‘quarry marks’ and I do not consider them to be hieroglyphs in the true sense. Seems more like ancient graffitti. Unlike other monuments and tombs throughout AE, the pyramids remain glaringly and suspiciously devoid of such inscriptions.”
On 4 April 2007, he posted this:
‘We apparently have a piece of evidence daubed in ochre paint with the name (allegedly) “khufu” [sic] on [sic] one of the relieving chambers of the “King’s Chamber” in the Great Pyramid. Where is the “supportive evidence” that this inscription is the word “Khufu”? Where is the “supportive evidence" that this “Khufu” was not the name of the quarry worker who painted it? In short - where is the “supportive evidence” for the orthodox position?’
On 29 January 2008, he posted this:
“Do you know if there are any proposal[sic]/plans in place to C-14 date the red ochre paint used for this inscription? If not, do you know why this might not be considered an option to help settle the question of this inscription?”
This last post some 22 months before his “ad nauseum” post of 27 November 2009:
In summary, we have evidence from 2006 onwards that Creighton was “aware” of the “quarry marks” and was looking for ways around their implications. His gravitation to the “forgery” allegation is already evident in his talking about dating the paint.