The Great Pyramid Hoax - New Evidence of Forgery in the Great Pyramid

a reply to: Scott Creighton

If you read through the background material, it appears that Vyse Sr. was chosen as a candidate simply because there weren't many other candidates around at the time.

... in 1806 there was difficulty in finding a contestant for Wharton and Burton. The former had regained the support of Lord Yarborough which Burton lost for opposing the government in parliament. A third man was eventually found in Gen. Richard Vyse, commander of the Yorkshire military district, who had been based in Beverley since 1804. Wharton once again headed the poll, with Vyse in second place 'almost without knowing that he was a candidate'. Burton, angered by his defeat, blamed Wharton and fought a bloodless duel with him. (fn. 72) Another general election followed in 1807. Vyse stood down for his son Richard, who received 1,010 votes from 1,203 voters, beating Wharton into second place; the third man Philip Staple stood on an anti-Catholic platform and had little support. Staple's consequent petition for bribery was unsuccessful, although Vyse is known to have paid all but 78 of those who voted for him at the rate of £3 8s. for a plumper and £1 14s. for a split vote. (fn. 73)

This PDF (3.1.1, pg. 3) explains what a "plumper" was:

In general elections in Middlesex, Westminster, and Marylebone, each elector had two votes at his disposal, whilst the London liveryman had four votes. In by-elections each voter in all constituencies had a single vote at his disposal, corresponding to the single seat being contested.10 Electors were under no obligation to use all, or indeed any, of their votes. Voters in Middlesex, Westminster, and Marylebone might choose to deploy just one of their two votes: in eighteenth-century parlance, this was the ‘plumper’. It meant not only casting one vote in favour of the preferred candidate but, in effect, giving a negative to the others.

Election agents assiduously sought plumpers when their candidate was standing without a running-mate, since the tactical denial of votes to rival candidates could have a marked effect. It effectively maximised the advantage of the single candidate.

I suspect that it was the whole system that was at fault, rather than just one individual.

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

If you read through the background material, it appears that Vyse Sr. was chosen as a candidate simply because there weren't many other candidates around at the time.

... in 1806 there was difficulty in finding a contestant for Wharton and Burton. The former had regained the support of Lord Yarborough which Burton lost for opposing the government in parliament. A third man was eventually found in Gen. Richard Vyse, commander of the Yorkshire military district, who had been based in Beverley since 1804. Wharton once again headed the poll, with Vyse in second place 'almost without knowing that he was a candidate'. Burton, angered by his defeat, blamed Wharton and fought a bloodless duel with him. (fn. 72) Another general election followed in 1807. Vyse stood down for his son Richard, who received 1,010 votes from 1,203 voters, beating Wharton into second place; the third man Philip Staple stood on an anti-Catholic platform and had little support. Staple's consequent petition for bribery was unsuccessful, although Vyse is known to have paid all but 78 of those who voted for him at the rate of £3 8s. for a plumper and £1 14s. for a split vote. (fn. 73)

This PDF (3.1.1, pg. 3) explains what a "plumper" was:

In general elections in Middlesex, Westminster, and Marylebone, each elector had two votes at his disposal, whilst the London liveryman had four votes. In by-elections each voter in all constituencies had a single vote at his disposal, corresponding to the single seat being contested.10 Electors were under no obligation to use all, or indeed any, of their votes. Voters in Middlesex, Westminster, and Marylebone might choose to deploy just one of their two votes: in eighteenth-century parlance, this was the ‘plumper’. It meant not only casting one vote in favour of the preferred candidate but, in effect, giving a negative to the others.

Election agents assiduously sought plumpers when their candidate was standing without a running-mate, since the tactical denial of votes to rival candidates could have a marked effect. It effectively maximised the advantage of the single candidate.

I suspect that it was the whole system that was at fault, rather than just one individual.

Vyse Sr. was mostly chosen because he was the Landlord's man and it was the Landlord (Lord Yarborough) who actually shelled out the cash for the bribery (see paragraph above in your source) a mere general would not have had several thousand pounds to contest a bought election, we are talking a time when the average salary was 12 pounds a year. Vyse jr. was nobodies man but was running on papa's ticket and Yarborough's money. And that is the primary reason Staple's petition failed (the secondary is that those who also had bribed the voter would certainly not set a precedent to get themselves impeached). Vyse jr. had not bought any votes but Papa and Yarborough did. Not that it made a difference, Vyse never rose above backbencher and has only twice risen in parliament to speak (as far as records go).

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Are there any ancient/historic texts in which the information regarding the time period of the construction of the Great Pyramid was handed down, orally or writtenly, through culture and society?

There is a decent amount of Egyptian hieroglyphics and artifacts, and civilizations interacted with Egypt for thousands of years, is there no found discussion in any of histories more ancient texts which press upon the history of the Great Pyramid/s?

I find the writings of Manetho (Egyptian High priest from 3rd century BCE) and Josephues (Jewish historian from 1st century) to be very similar.

Here is the excerpt from Manetho:


"Manetho (of Sebennytos) - (c. 280-270 BC) - The Egyptian High priest who said:

"There came up from the East, in a strange manner, men of an ignoble race (not Egyptian), who had the confidence to invade our country, and easily subdue it without a battle. All this invading nation was styled Hyksos, that is Shepherd Kings". (14)"

The following extract purports to be a conversation between Herodotus and Manetho:


"Extract from Miracle of Ages - 'In the course of his questioning he (Herodotus) encountered one Manetho, an Egyptian High Priest, scholar and Historian, with whom he conversed at length thru the agency of an interpreter. Manetho informed his distinguished guest that the architect of the huge mass of stone was one "Philition", or "Suphis", of a people known as the "Hyksos", that is "Shepherd Kings". According to Manetho, the Shepherd Kings were "a people of ignoble race" who came from some unknown land in the East; they were a nomadic band who numbered not less than 280,000 souls; they brought with them their families and all mobile possessions, including vast flocks of sheep and herds of cattle; and they "had the confidence to invade Egypt, and subdued it without a battle". this same people, said Manetho, overthrew the then-reigning Dynasty, stamped out idolatry and endeavored to firmly establish in the place thereof the worship of the One true God having completed the Great pyramid, migrated eastward into the land afterwards known as Judea and founded there the city of Salem, which later became Jerusalem, the Holy city.' He also says of 'Suphis' that 'He was arrogant to the gods and wrote the sacred book, which is regarded by the Egyptians as a work of great importance'. (7) "

Continuing on...


"Seiss (15), adds that 'Manetho is quoted by Josephus and others, as saying "We had formerly a king who's name was Timaus. In his time it came to pass, I know not how, that the deity was displeased with us; and they came from the east and when they had our rulers in their hands they demolished the temples of the gods" (see coreys fragments, p257) This Timaus of Manetho is doubtless the same person as the Chemes of Diodorus, the Ceops of Herodotus, and the Chufu or Suphis of the monuments'. And that "some say they were Arabians" which left Egypt in large numbers and went to "That country now called Judea, and there built a city and named it Jerusalem".

I disagree with Manetho here, Timaus was the King of the Kenites who invaded after the Exodus, Suphis reigned at a different time, details of this to be provided soon.

So here we have accounts from several ancient historians claiming the following:

1. The Hyskos kings (shepherd king) came into power in Egypt without a battle (no defending army of Egypt to stop them). They brought all their families, herds and possessions with them (they know there would be no battle, therefore they brought their families and herds). They worshiped "one God" and banned idol worship. After building the Great Pyramid at Giza, their descendants migrated East and established the city of Jerusalem in Judea.

So they were Shepherds, worshiped One God, banned idols, built Jerusalem and had an Egyptian King name Suphis.

Joseph = Yuseif (Hebrew) = Suphis (Egyptian).

Manetho made a few miscalculations, first he got the stories of Joseph (Suphis) and Job (Cheops) confused with the Kenites from Sinai and mixed both stories together, Josephus the Jewish historian corrects these mistakes in his writings.

Joseph (Suphis) came into power without a battle in Egypt (right hand to the high pharaoh). He was a shepherd by trade (his father Jacob was as well), during his reign the children of Israel migrated into Egypt during the 7 years of famine with families, herds and possessions. They dwelt in the land of Gosh-en (Suphis' jurisdiction while in power).

Job (Cheops) was married to a daughter of the same high pharaoh during Suphis' reign. He was pharaoh over the land of Uz (Sinai, Western Arabia, sliver of Eastern Egypt) and was contemporary to Suphis.

During the 7 years of famine, the people needed a public works project to keep the people at peace and not thinking about the severe famine affecting the rest of the planet. The Great Pyramid was that project. Giza was the ancient border between the lands under Suphis' control and the land of Uz under Cheops' control. The building was formed using Holy geometry and numerical structure originating from ancient times and passed on through Abraham Issac and Jacob.

Where Manetho gets off is in his attributing Suphis as Hyskos. This is understandable however considering the Hyskos followed the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, as Suphis did. However the Hyskos came into power after the Exodus of Israel from Egyptian rule.

Everyone knows the story of Moses and the Exodus. But what people fail to consider is the events effect on Egypt as a global political power. During the crossing of the Red Sea (Gulf of Acaba) all of Egypt's army was killed, and so was Pharaoh!

This event left a massive power vacuum in Egypt, no defending army, no Pharaoh, no opposition.

Enter the Hyskos kings. Who came from the "East" (Sinai), with confidence to subdue Egypt without a battle (there was no military to stop them).

After Moses reaches the other side of the Gulf of Acaba, he encounters the Kenites (descendants of Lot, Abraham's nephew) who also happen to be his in-laws through marriage to his first wife, they are shepherds and taught Moses how to shepherd while he was living among them for 40 years. Moses talks to his father-in-law, explains what happened in Egypt and how God delivered them from Pharaoh. This is how the Kenites (Hyskos kings) gained the confidence to invade without a battle.

While Egypt was under Kenite rule, all worshiped One god and idolatry was not allowed. As descendants of Lot they would fear the God of Abraham (remember Sodom?).

As we know from scripture the mummy of Suphis (Joseph) was carried out of Egypt by Moses during the Exodus.

Manetho simply considers Suphis as part of the Hyskos because they believe in the same doctrine and enforced the same laws, however their reigns were roughly 250 years apart; Suphis, before the 7 year famine and Great Pyramid construction; Hyskos after the Exodus of Israel, after the Great Pyramid construction.

God Bless,

a reply to: Hooke

Hooke: I suspect that it was the whole system that was at fault, rather than just one individual.

SC: The system back in 1807 was far from perfect—there is no denying that. But the single most crucial point is that the 1729 Bribery Act made it illegal for candidates to buy votes at parliamentary elections. Vyse would have been very aware of that but nevertheless was more than willing to flout the law and bribe 932 electors in the Beverley constituency—that’s 92% of all those who voted for him in the 1807 election.

When you look at how close his father was to losing the seat in the 1806 election (he beat the third placed candidate by only 189 votes), it is little wonder that Vyse Jnr went ‘overboard’ and made absolutely certain of buying every possible vote that he could in order to maintain hold of the seat vacated by his father. (Vyse Jnr won the seat outright and beat the third placed candidate--Philip Staple--by a crushing and never-to-be-repeated margin of 731 votes).

Of course, other parliamentary candidates will undoubtedly have been resorting to such illcit practices in other rotten boroughs across the UK. But not every parliamentary candidate was prepared to resort to bribery and not every borough was rotten. These rotten boroughs were the exceptions and not the rule.

But even if a significant group of people are engaged in an illegal activity, that does not make it legally or morally right. We don’t all join in the illegal activity just because many others are doing so. But Vyse was one of those happy to step over that line to breaking the law of the land, to commit electoral fraud to further his own ambitions.

Morality, clearly, didn’t even come into it. And so, we have to ask, if Vyse was prepared to step over the line here and commit fraud in order to achieve his ambition, how can we be certain he would not do so again at some other point in his life?

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: [post=18334029]Hooke

Vyse was one of those happy to step over that line to breaking the law of the land, to commit electoral fraud to further his own ambitions.

You claim that he was ambitious, and bribed electors for his own ends.

But this was accepted practice for anyone wanting to enter Parliament at that time, as shown here some time ago:

(From the Beverley Bribery Commission of 1869)

24,063. (The witness.) I should like now to explain to the Commissioners the custom which has prevailed with regard to this payment of money. I do not know whether they understand it or not. It has been customary for generations past. I hold in my hand a book of the date of 1807 containing a list of all the persons paid at that election. I should like the Commissioners to know this for the sake of the credit of the borough, as questions have been asked of different witnesses as to how it happens that this system prevails. On the first page of this book there is an entry, “Paying Capt. Vyse’s voters, 16th June 1808 [sic], R. Dalton.” Out of 1,010 who voted for Capt. Vyse it appears from these entries that only 78 did not receive money. For a plumper the amount paid was 3l. 8s., and a split vote 1l. 14s. There are several persons who did not vote, for a very good reason, for some of them were in prison. At that time they used to pay wives, grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, and everybody connected with them. So that many of these freemen have drunk in the system with their mothers’ milk.

24,064. (Mr. Barstow.) What is the authority for these numbers?—It is in the writing of Mr. Frederick Campbell, one of my predecessors and afterwards mayor of Beverley; it is partly in his writing and partly in the writing of Mr. Bland; and it is added up in the writing of another of my predecessors, Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Bland was another leading gentleman in the town. You will see that there were several persons paid who did not vote. In fact the system was universal. Everyone took the money. It has been handed down to the present time, the principle of it. I am not mentioning it for the purpose of justifying it, but merely that the Commissioners might have a little consideration.

And what did Vyse Jr. get out of it? As this source says:

At the general election of 1807 Vyse, professing himself ‘perfectly independent and unconnected with any party’,2 topped the poll at Beverley where his father, now stationed in Yorkshire, had won a seat the previous year. Perceval reported that he spoke against the addition of Burdett to the finance committee, 30 June 1807, but the speech escaped the notice of the parliamentary reporters.3 He voted with government on the address, 23 Jan.; the Scheldt inquiry, 26 Jan., 23 Feb., 5 and 30 Mar. 1810, when the Whigs classed him ‘against the Opposition’, and the Regency resolutions, 1 Jan. 1811. He was chosen to second the address, 7 Jan. 1812, and, according to Perceval, delivered a ‘very good’ speech praising the Regent and the progress of the war, and was ‘not at all put out’ by Burdett’s manoeuvre, which made it necessary to move the official address as an amendment.4 He voted against parliamentary reform, 21 May 1810, and against Catholic relief, 22 June 1812.

At the general election of 1812 he gave up Beverley and stood for the venal borough of Honiton, where he came in unopposed. He was expected to support the Liverpool ministry and generally did so, but his vote could not be taken for granted and he was probably a laggard attender. He voted against Catholic relief, 2 Mar., ‘declined voting’ in the decisive division of 24 May 1813,5 but again cast hostile votes on 21 May 1816 and 9 May 1817 ...

Vyse did not seek re-election in 1818.

So I repeat: how did going into Parliament further his 'own ends'? What did he get out of it?

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: [post=18334029]Hooke

Vyse was one of those happy to step over that line to breaking the law of the land, to commit electoral fraud to further his own ambitions.

You claim that he was ambitious, and bribed electors for his own ends.

But this was accepted practice for anyone wanting to enter Parliament at that time, as shown here some time ago:

(From the Beverley Bribery Commission of 1869)

24,063. (The witness.) I should like now to explain to the Commissioners the custom which has prevailed with regard to this payment of money. I do not know whether they understand it or not. It has been customary for generations past. I hold in my hand a book of the date of 1807 containing a list of all the persons paid at that election. I should like the Commissioners to know this for the sake of the credit of the borough, as questions have been asked of different witnesses as to how it happens that this system prevails. On the first page of this book there is an entry, “Paying Capt. Vyse’s voters, 16th June 1808 [sic], R. Dalton.” Out of 1,010 who voted for Capt. Vyse it appears from these entries that only 78 did not receive money. For a plumper the amount paid was 3l. 8s., and a split vote 1l. 14s. There are several persons who did not vote, for a very good reason, for some of them were in prison. At that time they used to pay wives, grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, and everybody connected with them. So that many of these freemen have drunk in the system with their mothers’ milk.

24,064. (Mr. Barstow.) What is the authority for these numbers?—It is in the writing of Mr. Frederick Campbell, one of my predecessors and afterwards mayor of Beverley; it is partly in his writing and partly in the writing of Mr. Bland; and it is added up in the writing of another of my predecessors, Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Bland was another leading gentleman in the town. You will see that there were several persons paid who did not vote. In fact the system was universal. Everyone took the money. It has been handed down to the present time, the principle of it. I am not mentioning it for the purpose of justifying it, but merely that the Commissioners might have a little consideration.

And what did Vyse Jr. get out of it? As this source says:

At the general election of 1807 Vyse, professing himself ‘perfectly independent and unconnected with any party’,2 topped the poll at Beverley where his father, now stationed in Yorkshire, had won a seat the previous year. Perceval reported that he spoke against the addition of Burdett to the finance committee, 30 June 1807, but the speech escaped the notice of the parliamentary reporters.3 He voted with government on the address, 23 Jan.; the Scheldt inquiry, 26 Jan., 23 Feb., 5 and 30 Mar. 1810, when the Whigs classed him ‘against the Opposition’, and the Regency resolutions, 1 Jan. 1811. He was chosen to second the address, 7 Jan. 1812, and, according to Perceval, delivered a ‘very good’ speech praising the Regent and the progress of the war, and was ‘not at all put out’ by Burdett’s manoeuvre, which made it necessary to move the official address as an amendment.4 He voted against parliamentary reform, 21 May 1810, and against Catholic relief, 22 June 1812.

At the general election of 1812 he gave up Beverley and stood for the venal borough of Honiton, where he came in unopposed. He was expected to support the Liverpool ministry and generally did so, but his vote could not be taken for granted and he was probably a laggard attender. He voted against Catholic relief, 2 Mar., ‘declined voting’ in the decisive division of 24 May 1813,5 but again cast hostile votes on 21 May 1816 and 9 May 1817 ...

Vyse did not seek re-election in 1818.

So I repeat: how did going into Parliament further his 'own ends'? What did he get out of it?

SC: As I have said--bribing the electorate may have been accepted practice in some of the rotten boroughs of the UK but it was still ILLEGAL. And Vyse would have known it was illegal. However much you wish to dress it up, Vyse committed an illegal act and would most certainly have known he was doing so. But it did not deter him. He was quite prepared to break the law of the land, to resort to electoral fraud, to get what he wanted. We cannot get away from that.

In today's terms, Vyse would have spent the best part of $150,000 on these bribes. Clearly it was an 'investment' he thought was well worth the outlay. So, what did Vyse get out of it? He got what all seekers of position get--power, patronage, prestige and privilege, as well as all the trappings that go along with that. Pretty much the same with elected politicians today.

So, if Vyse was able and willing to commit fraud in his early life, is it not possible that he was capable of doing so later in his life?

SC

The simple thing to do would be to test the paint. That would tell them what they need to know.

As for opening a ppt or whatever, if you have a ppt viewer installed it acts very similar to a pdf.

Taking a close look at rule 15j, you could apply that to ANY webpage... What do you think your browser does with HTML code? It executes the code from the file that it downloads. At it's base that's all the internet is - files you download and execute.

Doesn't everyone highlight the link first to see what it is? Or is that too "old school" now?

a reply to: gspat

You can't highlight links on a smartphone.

True, but it's unlikely you'll be able to open a ppt either in that case.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

SC: As I have said--bribing the electorate may have been accepted practice in some of the rotten boroughs of the UK but it was still ILLEGAL. And Vyse would have known it was illegal. However much you wish to dress it up, Vyse committed an illegal act and would most certainly have known he was doing so. But it did not deter him. He was quite prepared to break the law of the land, to resort to electoral fraud, to get what he wanted. We cannot get away from that.

In today's terms, Vyse would have spent the best part of $150,000 on these bribes. Clearly it was an 'investment' he thought was well worth the outlay. So, what did Vyse get out of it? He got what all seekers of position get--power, patronage, prestige and privilege, as well as all the trappings that go along with that. Pretty much the same with elected politicians today.

Vyse Jr. was all set to inherit from his grandmother, so money wouldn't have been a problem. But it seems neither he nor his father ended up making much of an impression on the political life of the time. So was the game really worth the candle?

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

So, if Vyse was able and willing to commit fraud in his early life, is it not possible that he was capable of doing so later in his life?

SC

The devices Vyse employed to get into Parliament were part of a system that was almost standard. Using an accepted mechanism to enter Parliament can't be compared with deliberate forgery. Vyse couldn't have been responsible for any counterfeit cartouches. He wouldn't have known what to put, or the right place to put it - and yet the masons' markings found in the chambers fit in with a system that wasn't discovered until much later on.

There is graffiti between the stones naming members of the work teams who built the pyramid, and who they worked for.
The great pyramids were built by Egyptians, period...

Start at 15 minutes:

a reply to: Hooke

Hooke: Vyse Jr. was all set to inherit from his grandmother, so money wouldn't have been a problem. But it seems neither he nor his father ended up making much of an impression on the political life of the time. So was the game really worth the candle?

SC: It wasn’t about money. This family were very wealthy indeed. We may never know the precise motive Vyse had for standing for parliament but clearly it was worth spending around $150,000 of the family fortune to pay in bribes in order to secure victory.

Hooke: The devices Vyse employed to get into Parliament were part of a system that was almost standard. Using an accepted mechanism to enter Parliament can't be compared with deliberate forgery.

SC: It was not “almost standard” at all. It may well have been an “accepted mechanism” between the participants (Vyse and his electors) in the rotten borough of Beverley, but it was most certainly not an “accepted mechanism” to enter parliament. If Vyse had been caught at the time he’d have gone to jail (assuming his friends in high places didn’t make the charge disappear). It was illegal. Period.

Hooke: Vyse couldn't have been responsible for any counterfeit cartouches.

SC: The evidence from Vyse’s private journal, from Hill’s facsimile drawings and from the evidence of ‘paint run’ from the Khufu cartouche all strongly suggests otherwise. There is also the additional evidence from Vyse’s private journal (which I have yet to make public but will do so in due course) where he notes an instruction to his assistants to place very specific hieroglyphs at a very specific location of the Great Pyramid. That's fraud in my book.

Hooke: He wouldn't have known what to put, or the right place to put it - and yet the masons' markings found in the chambers fit in with a system that wasn't discovered until much later on.

SC: First of all, Vyse would only have needed to recognize the Khufu cartouche in order to perpetrate a fraud since we often find the full titulary of Khufu together. But did Vyse know what the Khufu cartouche looked like? He did because in his private journal he writes:

”Cartouches in tomb to the W. [west] of first pyramid are different than Suphis [Khufu].”

Vyse would have to know what the Khufu cartouche looked like in order to recognize variations of it. He does not tell us the source of his information.

Secondly, Humphries Brewer (according to Walter Allen’s notes) tells us that “feint marks were repainted, some were new”. Clearly then, according to Brewer, some marks WERE genuine but painted over with newer, fresher paint. But which ones? And which ones were drawn by Raven & Hill?

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

SC: It wasn’t about money. This family were very wealthy indeed. We may never know the precise motive Vyse had for standing for parliament but clearly it was worth spending around $150,000 of the family fortune to pay in bribes in order to secure victory.

But you said earlier that he did it for prestige, patronage and privilege. Now you say that we don't know why he did it.

The Beverley elections took place about 15 years after the French Revolution. A good part of the British aristocracy looked on in horror at the social upheaval and massacres that ensued, and were determined that nothing like that should ever happen in the UK. Not realising that political reform might improve the situation rather than worsen it, they set their faces against it, in the belief that clinging to the status quo was the way to prevent the sort of social unrest that had taken place across the Channel. Although Vyse was 'independent', he voted against political reform, and generally, though not always, he voted with the Government.

He very likely thought that entering Parliament, using methods that had become widely accepted, and helping to maintain the status quo once he was an MP, was the right thing to do.

Hooke: The devices Vyse employed to get into Parliament were part of a system that was almost standard. Using an accepted mechanism to enter Parliament can't be compared with deliberate forgery.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
SC: It was not “almost standard” at all. It may well have been an “accepted mechanism” between the participants (Vyse and his electors) in the rotten borough of Beverley, but it was most certainly not an “accepted mechanism” to enter parliament. If Vyse had been caught at the time he’d have gone to jail (assuming his friends in high places didn’t make the charge disappear). It was illegal. Period.

It was a mechanism used by many other MPs.

Hooke: Vyse couldn't have been responsible for any counterfeit cartouches.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
The evidence from Vyse’s private journal, from Hill’s facsimile drawings and from the evidence of ‘paint run’ from the Khufu cartouche all strongly suggests otherwise. There is also the additional evidence from Vyse’s private journal (which I have yet to make public but will do so in due course) where he notes an instruction to his assistants to place very specific hieroglyphs at a very specific location of the Great Pyramid. That's fraud in my book.

Hooke: He wouldn't have known what to put, or the right place to put it - and yet the masons' markings found in the chambers fit in with a system that wasn't discovered until much later on.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

First of all, Vyse would only have needed to recognize the Khufu cartouche in order to perpetrate a fraud

No - he would have needed to know the right context in which to place it.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
since we often find the full titulary of Khufu together. But did Vyse know what the Khufu cartouche looked like? He did because in his private journal he writes:

”Cartouches in tomb to the W. [west] of first pyramid are different than Suphis [Khufu].”

Whatever he wrote, I doubt if it could have been 'different than', which is a present day American usage.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
Vyse would have to know what the Khufu cartouche looked like in order to recognize variations of it. He does not tell us the source of his information.

He refers several times to Champollion and Rosellini.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Secondly, Humphries Brewer (according to Walter Allen’s notes) tells us that “feint marks were repainted, some were new”. Clearly then, according to Brewer, some marks WERE genuine but painted over with newer, fresher paint. But which ones? And which ones were drawn by Raven & Hill?

So Brewer was definitely at Giza?