Author of the Month :  The Official forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Scott Creighton’s wording as here:

My comments with minor edits and reordered to show the development of the argument.

“Intriguingly, Vyse’s fraudulent activity at Giza was apparently witnessed by one of Vyse’s workers, a man named Humphries Brewer. . . . in 1954, Walter Allen of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Brewer’s great grandson), came to learn of his great grandfather’s time with Vyse at Giza and recorded the details of the family discussion in his ham radio logbook at the time.” Creighton introduces this story as if it were new to the discussion. It is far from being so. In the first place, Creighton is merely following Sitchin, and Allen took his story to Sitchin in 1983. Creighton began citing it in April, 2013. From the outset and in the years intervening, he has been exposed to cogent criticism of it. There is actually an entire book on the question: The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer. All of this he has chosen to discount or ignore.

We may wish to consider what he has implicitly admitted. He has told us that his original object in looking at Vyse’s journal was to find support for Allen’s story. He searched the (nearly unreadable) manuscript and failed to find it. The best he could come up with is some remarks about someone other than Humphries Brewer: remarks, moreover, which do not identify the person in question as a witness to forgery or anything else. We have here the usual Creighton Ersatz.

As has been explained to Mr Creighton, the suggestion that Humphries Brewer “wrote letters back to his family in England about . . . his time working with Vyse at Giza” comes entirely from Zecharia Sitchin. It is not what Walter Allen actually wrote. In Allen’s “logbook” story, Brewer told his parents about his adventures after his return to England. There is nothing in it about his sending letters home from Egypt.

Creighton’s “something of an unexpected twist to the account as relayed to us by Allen” merely hints at how bizarre an “argument” he resorts to in his attempt to rehabilitate Allen’s dubious story. To force a match between what Allen (supposedly) said and some (barely readable) remarks in Vyse’s journal, Creighton has to suppose that Allen was mistaken in so crucial a detail as who the “eyewitness” was. It was not (Creighton tells us) Humphries Brewer: it was someone else, whose name he is unable to read. He “proves” that Allen’s story is true by assuming that it is false.

Why does Creighton need Allen’s story at all? If it’s all in the journal? Because it is not all in the journal. There is nothing in the journal which identifies Creighton’s candidate as a witness to forgery (or anything else). Creighton needs to bring in Allen’s story (and reassign it arbitrarily to a different protagonist) to add the element of forgery to what’s in the journal.

To coerce “Vyse’s private notes” into “lend[ing] support to Allen’s story about his great grandfather calling foul on forgery within the Great Pyramid and being subsequently dismissed by Vyse”, Creighton (as noted) has no choice but to assume that the Brewer/Allen family tradition was wrong about the identity of the witness. It was not (Creighton tells us) Allen’s great grandfather at all: it was someone else entirely, whose name (in Vyse’s notes) he can’t read. He thinks it begins with an “M” and so designates this shadowy individual “Witness M”. He adds this helpful suggestion: “This indecipherable name could also be of Arabic origin, such as Mussadiq (one who verifies another) or Mushiq (friend).” Hold on to that thought.

A title which Vyse uses quite often is rendered in his published work as “Madyr”. A letter from Campbell, reproduced in this work, contains a variant rendition: “Moudir”. We have here an Arabic word, مدير, meaning “manager” or similar. Other renditions I have seen include “Moudyr” and “Moudhyr”. The relevant word in “Vyse’s private notes” looks to me like “Moudhy”: my provisional theory is that this was Vyse’s attempt at the time to put down the phonetic form of the Arabic title مدير. Vyse had dealings with more than one holder of this office. Towards the end of Vyse’s handwritten entry for May 9, I can make out this: “the ?Moudhy is very anxious”. There is of course not the least indication that the object of his anxiety was an act of forgery in the Great Pyramid. If the word in question is indeed the Arabic title, we see at once one good reason why it was Raven (and not Vyse) “quarrelled” with this man: Raven (unlike Vyse) could speak Arabic. (Note: “quarrelled” is the usual British spelling).

We are in any case asked to believe that “Witness M” witnessed an act of forgery, quarrelled with Raven, was “discharged” by Vyse, and did . . . nothing. One might have expected the sequel to be a complaint to Muhammad Ali—more so if this was an Egyptian official.

Creighton’s case for “Witness M” is null and void.

[Contrary to rumour, I am not Witness] M.

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Creighton’s “Witness M” 386 Martin Stower 12-Jul-21 12:42
Re: Creighton’s “Witness M” 165 Martin Stower 14-Jul-21 13:43

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.