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

As my tenure here as Graham's Author of the Month draws to a close, I thought I would take this final opportunity to share with you a further short extract from my new book, The Great Pyramid Void Enigma.

A number of you may be familiar with my previous book, The Great Pyramid Hoax which presented a number of anomalies from various sources pointing towards a fraud having been perpetrated by Howard Vyse (and his assistants, Raven and Hill, in 1837). Since that book was published, a whole stream of new evidence has been uncovered that supports that earlier contention and which is presented in full in the appendices of the new book. The extract from the new book below presents just one of the many new anomalies that has been uncovered since HOAX was published in 2017.

I hope at least some of you will find it of interest.

A Practice to Deceive

From both of Vyse’s accounts (private and published), it is plainly clear that Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber had been breached on May 6 (fig. 1). However, the chamber’s dedication inscription to Lady Arbuthnot, which was painted onto the chamber wall by Hill, contradicts this May 6 date and actually gives the chamber’s opening date as having occurred three days later, on May 9 (fig. 2).

Figure 1. The many painted inscriptions Vyse had made during his time at Giza. To reproduce this information for his 1840 book would have required Vyse to have carefully noted each of these inscriptions while at Giza in 1837 (he could hardly commit all of this to memory). However, in the “Inscriptions” entry in Vyse’s published account, he wrongly reports the date within the inscription in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber as May 6, 1837. (Image: Vyse, Operations, Vol II, p.145)

Figure 2. The dedication inscription in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber. The actual date in the chamber inscription is given as May 9, 1837, contradicting Vyse’s private and published accounts. (Photo courtesy of Patrick Chapuis)

To be clear, this date of May 9 in the chamber's inscription does not reflect the date when Hill actually painted the inscription itself, but, just like the dedication inscriptions in the other chambers, it states the chamber’s opening date. We can be certain of this since it was confirmed by Hill in no less than six of his facsimile sheets from this chamber, in which he writes on each sheet, “opened on the 9th of May 1837.” Furthermore, these facsimile sheets were duly signed by a number of witnesses, including Sir Robert Arbuthnot, Raven, Hill, Brettel and even Vyse himself, all testifying to this May 9 opening date. Here then we have a glaring contradiction as to when this chamber was actually opened: both of Vyse’s journals tell us May 6 (as does Perring’s account), but Hill has written May 9 on the chamber wall and also on no less than six of his verified facsimile drawings. Something is clearly afoot here.

So what’s going on? It stands to reason that Vyse, to write the “Inscriptions” section of his book, must have had a copy of all the inscriptions made at Giza, including that in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber with its May 9 date. So why does the colonel contradict this date by stating in his later published account that the dedication inscription reads “Lady Arbuthnot’s chamber, May 6, 1837,” when evidently it does not say this and he would surely have seen (in his copy of this inscription) that it doesn't say this? Furthermore, why did Vyse, upon seeing this seemingly contradictory May 9 date painted onto the chamber wall and Hill’s facsimile sheets, not instruct Hill to correct it at the time? If he felt it was important enough to “correct” in his later book, then why not also the original chamber inscription? Indeed, why should such a glaring contradiction even exist at all between these various documented sources? Why did Perring (in 1839) and Vyse (in 1840) claim an opening date of May 6 while the chamber’s dedication inscription and Hill’s facsimile drawings state May 9 as the opening date? Why such a blatant contradiction?

What we may actually be observing here is but yet another calculated attempt by Vyse to manipulate events at Giza, just as he had previously conflated and fudged the dates of Nelson’s Chamber. In this instance, however, Vyse was not (at least initially) attempting to backfill the events to the earlier date of May 6 as being when the chamber was actually opened but, rather, was attempting to shift the opening date of the chamber (and the claimed discovery of the painted marks therein) forward in time by three days to May 9, and for a very specific reason.

The colonel, naturally, would have wanted it to be known that the discovery of the painted marks in this chamber occurred on the very same day the chamber was opened because, during any initial exploration, he would have realized that such an obvious oversight by two men of so many painted marks would surely have raised some eyebrows and probably some awkward questions. As such, the three day time lag between the chamber’s actual opening and the discovery of the painted marks needed to be compressed (read: vanish), and Vyse’s solution was to shift the date of the chamber’s actual opening, moving it a few days forward in order to give himself time to have the quarry marks painted into the chamber by his Egyptian worker (with Raven and Hill likely complicit in this nefarious activity). And, naturally, as part of his plan, Vyse would have instructed Hill to place the dedication inscription with the date of May 9, 1837, on the chamber wall to show to the world that this was the date the chamber was opened (as opposed to the true date of May 6) and that this May 9 date was also the date that a “great many quarry-marks” therein were also discovered. Awkward time gap gone.

To be absolutely clear here, the wording of the dedication inscription placed in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber would have been wholly the responsibility of Vyse—not Hill. This chamber was Vyse’s discovery. The naming of each chamber was entirely his prerogative. And the text of the dedication inscription would also have been his prerogative. It is simply inconceivable that the colonel would have delegated the wording of the chamber’s dedication inscription to Hill. Vyse would have totally called the shots on this, deciding exactly what text, including the date, was to be placed on the chamber wall.

Consider then that Vyse’s published account, in quoting the inscription in this chamber, claims it reads May 6, 1837. Vyse presents this May 6 date to us without any indication whatsoever that he had actually altered it (from May 9). And neither does he offer any eplanation as to why he made this alteration. This is surely odd since Vyse, throughout his book, routinely notes and comments upon other instances where he believes documentary mistakes were made elsewhere by various other people, including the misreporting of dates. We are thus permitted to wonder, if this had been a mistake made by Hill and that Vyse was merely correcting the date here after the fact (as some have suggested), why did he not likewise offer any commentary in his published work as to having made this change and why he felt it was necessary? As noted, Vyse would almost certainly have had a note of the inscription text from this chamber (including its May 9 date) while writing his book. Given this, he would have been wholly aware that in changing the May 9 date to May 6, he was giving a false report on material evidence. Surely the correct and transparent procedure here would have been for the colonel to have quoted the actual date given in the inscription (May 9) and to have added a footnote in his text with his new date, explaining that Hill had made a mistake that required correcting (had that actually been the case). This approach would have been consistent with his dealing of mistakes he observed in other source material cited in his book. That Vyse didn't take this approach in this instance strongly suggests that he couldn't. Why? Because to have done so would have meant placing unwarranted criticism upon Hill for a mistake he never made and who had merely been following the colonel's orders. The expedient option then was to simply say nothing of the reasons for the change.

And so, what we have here is nothing but a complete fabrication by Vyse, an outright lie. This, right here, is clear proof of Vyse knowingly and surreptitiously misreporting actual evidence, of manipulating facts in his published account for his own ends. This, right here, is clear evidence of an attempt to conceal his botched deception. (It would have looked highly peculiar indeed were Vyse to have had a May 6 diary entry in his book stating the chamber was opened on this day with an inscriptions section later in his book declaring May 9 as the date. By falsely reporting May 6 as the date given in this inscription, Vyse was able to avoid placing a contradiction in his published account and avoid also the awkward questions such a contradiction would surely have raised.) The May 9 date can be observed in this chamber's inscription to this very day, but it is an opening date which Vyse, for reasons that will soon become clear, had to abandon in his book and revert to the true opening date of May 6.

Critics will undoubtedly respond to this date anomaly by suggesting that Vyse, notwithstanding the above, was merely correcting an original mistake made in this inscription by Hill who had somehow got muddled and painted the wrong date onto the chamber wall. This possibility is highly unlikely for a number of reasons.

1. As previously noted, Vyse has never claimed that Hill made a mistake with the date in this inscription (contrary to his routinely alerting his readers to documentary mistakes made by other writers in other source material throughout his book, including misreported dates).

2. Since Hill was in Cairo two days before the chamber was opened, he could not have known when the opening had actually occurred. As such, Hill could not have been relying on his own memory of the chamber's opening to recall and paint the desired date into the inscription. Someone must have informed Hill of the desired date (almost certainly Vyse).

3. This was an important piece of text that Hill was placing on this wall—the chamber’s dedication inscription! Is it realistic to believe that Hill could get something so important so wrong?

4. As noted, if Hill had made a genuine mistake with this date, why wasn't it corrected at the time? If this “mistake” was important enough for Vyse to later “correct” for his book, then why didn't he have the original inscription corrected?

5. If Hill had been using stencils for his inscriptions (not unlikely), then the very fact that a “9,” when inverted, can become a “6” would have made it all the more likely that he would have been extra careful with this particular number, ensuring that he had the stencil the desired way up before painting the number.

6. Is it really likely that Hill and Vyse somehow managed between them to come up with the wrong chamber opening date when that event had occurred only a few days earlier? The date this inscription was likely painted onto this wall by Hill coincidentally occurred on May 9. As such, in painting the chamber's opening date (that day’s date) onto the wall, Hill would surely have known that this chamber had not been opened that same day, but rather three days earlier (when he had been in Cairo), and yet, for some unfathomable reason, he ignored that glaring chronological disparity and continued to paint “May 9th” onto the wall rather than the earlier true opening date of May 6.

7. Hill specifically wrote May 9 as the chamber's opening date on six of his facsimile sheets (the veracity of which was attested to by Vyse and several other witnesses).

8. Hill, whom Vyse describes as “a very intelligent person,” appears throughout Vyse’s operations at Giza to have been a thoroughly dependable man, having made no mistakes of any kind with the dedication inscriptions in any of the other chambers.

On the balance of probability then, it does seem that Hill painted onto the wall the dedication inscription he would have been instructed by Vyse to paint. There was no mistake, and he painted the inscription exactly as it would have been given to him. And so, May 9, 1837, was to be the date that Vyse planned to tell the world that Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber was first opened and the date that the painted quarry marks were found on the chamber's walls. Thus, in this planned scenario, there is no problematic time lag that needed explaining between the date the chamber was opened and the date the quarry marks therein were discovered. In this scenario, there would have been no mention whatsoever in the colonel’s future published account of the actual truth (i.e., that the chamber had, in fact, been opened three days earlier on May 6 and that no quarry marks had been found in the chamber on that date). It was not intended that any of this be known, and, had everything gone to plan, the true opening date of this chamber, May 6, would have been entirely expunged from Vyse’s official account.

And so, everything was in place, and the colonel’s plan was nicely coming together. The chamber was now ready for the visit of Sir Robert and Lady Arbuthnot the following day, and, naturally, with the chamber being named in honor of Lady Arbuthnot, it would have been quite likely that these esteemed guests of Vyse would have desired to see inside this chamber. The perfect witnesses.

But the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men, often go awry. Vyse’s carefully crafted deception was about to unravel and the truth of his mendacity exposed in quite spectacular fashion. . .


(NOTE: There is some additional text in the above extract that didn't make it into the final book due to a lack of space).

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 31-Jul-21 18:34 by Scott Creighton.

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 514 Scott Creighton 31-Jul-21 18:28
Re: Howard Vyse in action 124 Thunderbird 31-Jul-21 19:28
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 179 Martin Stower 31-Jul-21 22:08
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 115 Corpuscles 01-Aug-21 00:53
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 114 Martin Stower 01-Aug-21 09:19
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 136 Scott Creighton 01-Aug-21 11:12
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 109 Martin Stower 01-Aug-21 16:21
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 131 Martin Stower 01-Aug-21 18:42
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 104 Martin Stower 01-Aug-21 18:55
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 105 Thanos5150 01-Aug-21 14:48
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 136 Scott Creighton 01-Aug-21 15:25
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 110 Martin Stower 01-Aug-21 16:38
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 119 Martin Stower 01-Aug-21 22:27
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 137 Martin Stower 03-Aug-21 00:52
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 136 Thanos5150 02-Aug-21 01:47
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 112 Martin Stower 02-Aug-21 10:59
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 102 Thanos5150 02-Aug-21 17:29
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 93 Martin Stower 10-Aug-21 08:58
Aylesbury Ducks 129 Merrell 10-Aug-21 12:53
A dubious game with modal verbs 119 Martin Stower 01-Aug-21 17:38
Prior comment 119 Martin Stower 01-Aug-21 18:02
Re: Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive 178 Audrey 02-Aug-21 02:37

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.