“Here we have a very Sitchinesque exercise in which Creighton provides his own inaccurate drawing of what’s alleged to be there but isn’t.”
I realise that this may not be understood without my showing what I’m talking about. (A picture is worth a thousand words and all of that.)
I claim that my use of Creighton’s Figure 4 is fair use. This is a review and critique of the argument presented by Creighton in Issue 106 of the magazine Atlantis Rising.
First some reminders.
To fully understand what this is about, you will need to obtain a copy of Atlantis Rising Issue 106, which will cost you $2.95 for a PDF download:
The relevant article is “CRIME IN THE GREAT PYRAMID BY SCOTT CREIGHTON”, starting on page 42.
This concerns a page in the manuscript journal of R. W. H. Howard Vyse and specifically the lower left hand corner, as here:
On page 69 of AR 106, Creighton presents a digital image (photograph) of the relevant page in the manuscript, overlaid with an arrangment of red boxes and red dotted lines, presenting a sequence of numbered figures as enlargements of details on the manuscript page. For Figure 5, we get an actual englargement, but for Figure 4 — for no very obvious reason — we get a fairly crude drawing (presumably done with some software or other). This is supposed to be an enlargement of the referenced detail on the manuscript page.
Creighton would have us believe that this:
— is the same as this:
Is it? Is it anything like?
Has not Creighton (or whoever prepared this figure for him) substantially misrepresented the topmost circle? The detail within the circle is not a central dot. I see one definite horizontal line and a suggestion of possibly two more (but as before, please look and make up your own minds).
A note of explanation: when I examined this material in 1998, digital cameras were thin on the ground and the policies of archive institutions on use of personal equipment were different also. The best I could do at the time was to obtain 1:1 photocopies of the most relevant sequences in the journal.
The ideal case would be a high resolution digital copy of the document, done on a flatbed scanner — but now, for detail, I would rely more on the photocopies than on Creighton’s (non-flatbed) digital images.
Even so, even the digital photo in the magazine is good enough to show the falsehood of what Creighton is claiming. What does he say?
“. . . we observe him [Vyse] having drawn a small circle with a dot in its center (Figure 4), the phonetic “Ra” sound and below this another small circle with three small horizontal strokes in its center, the phonetic “Kh” sound. It is as though Vyse, having found the Khufu text with a blank disc, is deliberating whether or not it should be drawn with hatched lines. We can even see that he has cross-referenced all these circles by placing a ‘1’ at top right of them.”
That to me looks very like two outright falsehoods: no, it’s not just a central dot and no, only two of the circles (and not all three) are cross-referenced.
Isn’t this very like the trick Sitchin played with an illustration in Vyse’s book? As explained by Frank Dörnenburg:
This is what I mean by it being Sitchinesque.
Am I getting the message across? Creighton’s take on this material is prevaricating rubbish from start to finish.
Just think what Creighton might have gotten away with here, if it weren’t for this pesky kid knowing the territory better.
I’ve just now noticed something else (and having noticed it, I can scarcely understand how I didn’t earlier). See the odd little symbols which I’ve marked in red?
This is not something which appears on the wall of the chamber. It’s another of the symbols used by Vyse to key one drawing to another — another indication that both of these drawings depict the same cartouche.
Post Edited (26-May-14 15:07)