It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 2 (Hill's Complicity)

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 05:55 AM
This thread will present further evidence of fraud having been perpetrated in the Great Pyramid in 1837 by Colonel Howard Vyse and his team. This further evidence is related to the earlier thread The Great Pyramid Hoax - New Evidence

As he opened each of the 'Relieving Chambers' above the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, Colonel Vyse allegedly found hieroglyphic markings in these chambers, some bearing the names of Khunum-Khuf and Khufu within cartouches. There were many other glyphs and simple mason's markings in these chambers. Some markings went between gaps in the unmovable granite blocks but as far as Graham Hancock could tell (he saw these marks with his own eyes) these are not registers of hieroglyphs and certainly not any cartouches but appear to be simple, randomly placed mason's marks.

Colonel Vyse commissioned his assistant, J.R. Hill, to make 1:1 facsimile drawings of the hieroglyphs (including the various cartouches) in all of these chambers--28 drawings in all. It is important to understand here that many of the hieroglyphs in these chambers are upside down (180 degrees), some rotated 90 degrees or, indeed, the correct way up (relative to our standing position).

I viewed all 28 of Hill's facsimile drawings recently at the British Museum. The analysis of these drawings reveals a very compelling piece of circumstantial evidence that implicates J.R. Hill in the forgery conspiracy along with Vyse. (Other evidence, yet to be presented, also implicates Mr Raven in the conspiracy).

When we pick up any one of Hill's drawings in the British Museum the first thing that strikes us is the question of orientation. Outiwth the chamber each facsimile drawing can have any one of four possible orientations. Even drawings with recognisable features such as an animal (e.g. bull) may actually be upside down in the chamber itself. Determining the correct orientation of facsimile drawing to chamber drawing is especially difficult with the more abstract drawings made by Hill--outwith the actual chamber we are confronted with the question as to their correct orienation relative to their actual position in the chambers.

For example: below is a reproduction of one of Mr Hill's 28 drawings:

Image reproduction (C) Scott Creighton 2014

How was the above drawing actually orientated within the chamber? Of course, it can be any one of four possible orientations, thus:

Image reproduction (C) Scott Creighton 2014

But which of the four possible orientatiions is correct and how might we know? Fortunately Mr Hill seems to have had a method for telling us this--he signed all his drawings (as did some other witnesses) to give the correct orientation. If we can read the signature (i.e. the signature is the correct way up for reading) then this gives us the correct orientation of each of the drawings. In this sense, the signature on each drawing serves as a fixed 'compass point' giving us the correct orienation of the drawing as it appeared to Mr Hill. For example, the above drawing is orientated thus:

Image reproduction (C) Scott Creighton 2014

As you can see in the above image, Mr Hill's signature (reproduction) allows us to know the correct orientation of the drawing in the chamber.

Now, of the 28 drawings made by Mr Hill I was able to cross-check the orientations of 23 of them using Mr Perring's floor plan of the chambers (see Vyse 'Operations') and also by using some recent photos of the markings made by Dr Robert Schoch and Dr Colette Dowall. Five drawings were made by Hill which do not appear in Perring's darwing (and vice-versa) and thus could not be cross-checked. Here is the full results of the 28 darwings:

21 presented a perfect match i.e. the signatures on the drawings provided the correct orientation of the drawing

5 could not be cross-checked (for the reason stated above).

2 drawings did not match i.e. the signatures did not give the correct orientation of the glyphs in the chambers.

The 2 drawings that did not give the correct orientation contain the very markings that are under dispute in the first thread (see above); the markings that Vyse noted incorrectly in his personal journal. Here:

Image reproduction (C) Scott Creighton 2014

Image reproduction (C) Scott Creighton 2014

Okay--so, does anyone notice what is inconsistent in the two images above?

Yes, Mr Hill's signature gives the wrong orientation of these two drawings as they actually appear in Campbell's Chamber (i.e. vertically). Were Mr Hill to have remained consistent with every other drawing he made and signed, he SHOULD have signed these two drawings thus (image below) to giver their correct orientation in Campbell's Chamber:

Image reproduction (C) Scott Creighton 2014

That Hill signed these two drawings horizontally strongly implies that this is how Hill originally observed these hieroglyphs and that he instinctively signed the drawing with its 'correct' (horizontal) orientation when he had finished. Of course, his later decision to then rotate these two drawings 90 degrees to then copy them into Campbell's Chamber (as Vyse's personal journal shows) has caught him out. Had Hill copied these drawings horizontally into the chamber then we would have been none the wiser of this deception. It does seem somewhat ironic that Hill's own signature which is used to vouch for the authenticity of the markings in these chambers is the very thing that suggests they have been faked.

The various witness signatures on these drawings giving the correct orientation of these drawings as they would appear in the actual chambers is no mere accident. If Hill had no clear method of presenting the correct orientation of his drawings then, statistically, we would expect that the orientation of Hill's drawings (using the signature as our 'compass point') would be correct only 1 out of 4 times. However, Mr Hill's drawings are orientated correctly by the signature 21 out of 28 times (that's 3 out of 4) and way above a random event--this is to say that the signature was clearly used as the means by Hill to give the drawing's correct orientation. I would also venture to say that of the 5 drawings I was unable to cross-check, I would, by using Hill's signature, be able to tell on each occasion the correct orientation of the actual markings in the chambers.

It is worth noting here that Vyse also drew these particular hieroglyphs in his personal journal horizontally as opposed to how they actually appear in the chamber (i.e. vertically). This is peculiar given that Vyse has drawn other markings from these chambers in his journal upside-down (i.e. as they actually appear in the chamber).

edit on 9/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 06:03 AM
Continued from previous.....

This then provides powerful circumstantial evidence that Hill originally observed the crew name and khufu cartouche in a horizontal orientation (hence why he signed it this way) and later copied these drawings (rotated 90 degrees) into Campbell's Chamber and thus offers corroboration to the other evidence of forgery we find in Vyse's personal journal.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 05:58 PM
a reply to: Scott Creighton

What was the point in messing with history? Did they just want to be proven right in their own theory of the pyramid?

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 08:11 PM
Is it at all possible this was just an honest mistake? Sometimes when things don't add up.. it's not because it's a conspiracy, but instead simply that someone goofed.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 09:50 PM

But which of the four possible orientatiions is correct and how might we know? Fortunately Mr Hill seems to have had a method for telling us this--he signed all his drawings (as did some other witnesses) to give the correct orientation.

That is a HUGE supposition on your part. The fact that several drawing are not oriented "up" according to where the signature is placed would indicate the signature is not germane to how they were oriented. According to cormac mac airt on Unexplained-Mysteries (link), who had contacted the British Museum on their collection, the paper used was 90cm x 60cm, and placed in a folio. They were labeled according to the chamber and the number assigned to each inscription, for example:

18. A red ink and brush copy of Khufu's cartouche and hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are as far as circumstances will admit of / exact facsimiles of characters found upon the walls / of Lady Arbuthnot's chamber in the Great Pyramid / of Ghizeh, opened on the 9th of May 1837 - / Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'On a Stone No. 2 of the Northern Side. / Drawn by JR Hill'.

The folio's sheets were loose and not in order. However, given the folio's dimensions, any drawings would be presented in a 'landscape format.' Since it was Hill's endeavor only to produce facsimiles of the hieroglyphs, it would be Perring's previously-made scaled elevations (at a reduced scale) that would provide details on proper orientation and placement. Hill's 1:1 drawings were to capture the hieroglyphs in exacting detail ("facsimile") in an era before cameras. Vyse wrote:

"Notwithstanding that the characters in these chambers were surveyed by Mr. Perring upon a reduced scale, I considered that facsimiles in their original size would be desirable, as they were of great importance from their situation, and probably the most ancient inscriptions in existence. I requested therefore Mr. Hill to copy them. His drawings were compared with the originals by Sir Robert Arbuthnot, Mr. Brettel (a civil engineer), Mr. Raven, and myself, and are deposited in the British Museum."

Secondly, drawings made by Hill were also signed by witnesses, in addition to Vyse. Hard to imagine this conspiracy being pulled off now that it would have to encompass not only Vyse but Hill, Perring, and those witnesses who signed the drawings.

Thirdly, as also gone over in the Unexplained Mysteries thread, kmt_sesh calls attention to the fact the chambers were covered in encrustations (Page 11;

Vyse: "Upon first entering the apartment, a black sediment was found, of the consistence of a hoar-frost, equally distributed over the floor, so that footsteps could be distinctly seen impressed on it, and it had accumulated to some depth in the interstices of the blocks. Some of this sediment, which was sent to the French establishment near Cairo, was said to contain ligneous particles. When analyzed in England, it was supposed to consist of the exuviae of insects; but as the deposition was equally diffused over the floor…it was most probably composed of particles of decayed stone."

It would have been impossible to simply scrawl forgeries on the walls until all this encrustation and leeched salt/effusion had been cleared away. In addition, as KMT points out, Vyse wasn't alone when the grafitti was discovered, and in fact the encrustation kept it hidden at first; KMT: "The point is, these encrustations and debris covered all surfaces, including the graffiti. In fact, the graffiti wasn't even noticed at first..."

Vyse: "Mr. Perring and Mr. Mash having arrived, we went in the evening into Wellington's Chamber, and took various measurements, and in doing so we found the quarry marks."

I hate to reference another forums discussions, but that thread has made most of these points, gone over them in great detail, yet you ignore those and keep starting new threads rehashing the same arguments.

To address your post topics: You want us to believe that because the drawing of the cartouche was signed along it's long side instead of it's short side, that that somehow translates into the drawing was prepared first and then - what? Copied to the walls vertically by mistake? This smacks of grasping at straws.

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:20 PM
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Because this time it'll

new topics


log in