> Martin Stower Wrote:
> > Scott Creighton Wrote:
> > > SC: Genuine marks are almost certainly those
> > > Vyse writes about in his private journal,
> > > (discovered upon his second visit) on the
> > > wall of Wellington's Chamber . . .
> > You mean the ones
> you told your podcast dupes Vyse
> > wrote weren’t there?
> > Almost certainly.
> > > EDIT TO ADD: And, as I have oft stated - if
> > > ONE mark in those chambers is found to have
> > > fraudulently placed then it automatically
> > > everything therein into question
> > > those already accepted as genuine from other
> > > evidence e.g. Vyse's private journal). . . .
> > Reminder:
> > “For the avoidance of doubt, it's my view,
> > always has been [sic], that there are some
> > in these 'Vyse Chambers' that I believe are
> > probably genuine and others that are probably
> > so. We just have to figure out which is
> > To which we now find added:
> > “. . . (excepting those already accepted as
> > genuine from other evidence e.g. Vyse's private
> > journal) . . .”
> > Hypocrisy turned up to 11.
> > M.
> The clearest example is this one:
> “. . . 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
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?
Does this mean he has changed his mind and learnt something?
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?
"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 hieroglyphics?
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.
Again clearly all 7 Horus name renderings must be genuine. No one then (1837) could have forged them!
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!)
Edit to help LA find something to snipe at!!!!
Edit 2: I also find the earlier SC rant interesting with regard to the inference of "three years after".
Does SC realise that between 30th March and by the 17th April 1837 that Perring's drawings had ben made and sent on 20th March 1837 to Mr Hamilton at the British Museum. Also (without counting precisely) it seems at least a dozen dignitaries had examined the marks in the month of April 1837. There is no relevance to the comment that the book was written 3 yrs later as clearly he was relying on the journal notes themselves in writing the book....
" the very same night, Richard", ... LOL!!!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 17-Feb-19 21:04 by Corpuscles.