Investigating the "Lost 4th Pyramid" at Giza

Hermione,

The image below is a copy of the low resolution image Frank D posted on his site (given to him by your co-author):



As can be easily observed, the content of the cartouche disk (bottom page) does not appear as 3 lines but more like a scrappy circumpunct (which is why I originally wrongly thought this was a solar disk Vyse had drawn here). The disk above the cartouche with the 3 clear lines (and the cross-ref 1) your co-author went on to explain was a clarification to the unclear content in the cartouche disk underneath it. (See below):



It later transpired, however, that the 3 lines in the lower cartouche disk ARE perfectly clear (and your co-author WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT), see image below:



So, given that your co-author had the hi-res image available to him and would have known that the lower cartouche (my CD3) DID have the 3 lines, why is he proposing that Vyse was clarifying a 'mistake' in the lower cartouche disk (CD3) when it MUST have been evident to your co-author that Vyse would not have needed to do such a thing (since there WERE 3 lines already in that disk)? The 'mistake' we observe in the low-res disk wasn't a mistake by Vyse (that your co-author was implying) but rather a low-res image which didn't show the disk detail that Vyse HAD drawn clearly enough. However, your co-author went on to imply that the low-res disk detail is what Vyse was actually clarifying (with the larger disk with 3 clear lines placed above this cartouche).That is what he implied in Nov 2009 and, given the edit marks around the image, I believed (at that time) it was a reasonable explanation for those marks.

In short, your co-author made use of a bad scan of the disk detail (in the lower cartouche) to suggest that Vyse drew the larger disk (above the cartouche) to clarify the unclear detail (in the lower cartouche disk) when he would surely have known there was no need for Vyse to enlarge and clarify anything there. But he had to explain those edit marks somehow. That was completely deceptive--a blatant lie. That was manipulating a narrative for his own selfish ends. Disgraceful and unforgivable.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

A scrappy circumpunct like the lost symbol in Dan Brown's novel, or maybe a St Joseph's coin with a margin area to scribble latin?
Perhaps the design origin for the Pythagorean inner and outer circles if you like that.
They were sun worshipers.

originally posted by: Slichter
a reply to: Scott Creighton

A scrappy circumpunct like the lost symbol in Dan Brown's novel, or maybe a St Joseph's coin with a margin area to scribble latin?
Perhaps the design origin for the Pythagorean inner and outer circles if you like that.
They were sun worshipers.

If you're looking for a "lost symbol" try this one - it went AWOL from the Great Pyramid in 1837. To this day, no one knows what happened to it, or why it went missing. I have my suspicions.

SC

www.abovetopsecret.com...

SC: Yes - your co-author shared the rest of the relevant information on that page (i.e. CD0) PRIVATELY with Frank Doernenburg [R.I.P.] and a few of your co-author's other cronies. He did NOT MAKE IT PUBLIC. And THAT is the point here. He WITHELD that contradictory information from the public domain while he was perfectly happy to have only the information that supported his agenda (i.e. CD3) released into the public domain by Frank Doernenburg (see below). That is the IMMUTABLE FACT here.

So, as I surmised, you’ve returned to your original allegation: that Martin somehow magically “withheld” material which all the time was in a public archive - as you know very well, having gone there and seen it (after Martin dropped a hint that it wasn’t where you thought it was).

As for Martin being “perfectly happy” about Frank’s actions: again you pronounce on private exchanges of which you know nothing.

You have already been told that Frank’s actions (in choosing to publish one of the images and in choosing which one to publish) were entirely unilateral. To this I may add that Frank did not consult Martin before posting the image and doing so was contrary to Martin’s original stipulation, which Frank had either forgotten or not understood in the first place. Far from welcoming Frank’s action (as you allege), Martin was very unhappy about it. It created a problem: there is such a thing as copyright, as I’m sure even you know by now. Contrary to your curious imaginings, Martin was not “running” Frank and had no control over what he did. As Frank seemed not to grasp the problem (which I tried explaining to him also), Martin decided that the best policy in the circumstances was “least said, soonest mended” (as he told you, here and here).

So, as you’re not in a position to know anything about what really happened, I would suggest that now would be a good time to stop coming up with baseless speculations.

SC: I suggest you get used to it because it won't be going away any time soon because that is what your co-author DID. And, as I told you earlier, it was a disgraceful and unforgivable act of manipulating the narrative; of subverting our history. THAT is what your co-author did by his self-serving action in withholding that CD0 information on that page.

Given your principled objection to “withholding” information, doubtless we will soon see all of your images of the journal - which, oddly, you have proven reluctant to show us, despite your declaring that you would publish them “in due course” when Martin suggested (in 2014) that you do so. Your “presentation” of this material has instead been begrudging, confined to what serves your agenda and heavily laden with your editorial. Sorry, but I see no reason to accept your ipse dixit that it’s not “withholding information” when you do it:

SC: Just because I haven't discussed some part of this sorry tale (yet), doesn't mean I'm withholding information. ...

As you have declared your intent to persist in this vein, this discussion is over as far as I am concerned.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

The one that looks like “Night’s Plutonian shore”?
And I was thinking those might be like snow birds, bird one is to sun one as bird two is to oh never mind..

a reply to: Hooke

H: As you have declared your intent to persist in this vein…

SC: “in this vein”? You mean by exposing the deceptive and duplicitous nature of your co-author in painting a biased and completely false narrative around the evidence in Vyse’s private journal? Personally I consider that people have a right to know what your co-author did. You’re in no position to try and take the moral high ground here.

H: …this discussion is over as far as I am concerned.

SC: You’re perfectly entitled to leave this discussion any time you please. I suspect, though, your disengagement has little to do with my “persist[ing] in this vein” and everything to do with killing off a very awkward thread. Alas, however, I am not finished. Not by a long way.

H: So, as I surmised, you’ve returned to your original allegation: that Martin somehow magically “withheld” material which all the time was in a public archive - as you know very well, having gone there and seen it (after Martin dropped a hint that it wasn’t where you thought it was).

SC: Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? The issue concerns the deceptive actions of your co-author with regards to the information that WAS released to the wider public (by FD via the internet)!! Those deceptive actions are now a matter of record.

H: As for Martin being “perfectly happy” about Frank’s actions: again you pronounce on private exchanges of which you know nothing. You have already been told that Frank’s actions (in choosing to publish one of the images and in choosing which one to publish) were entirely unilateral. To this I may add that Frank did not consult Martin before posting the image and doing so was contrary to Martin’s original stipulation, which Frank had either forgotten or not understood in the first place.

SC: As stated above, my concern here is how your co-author treated that info after it was released by FD i.e. after the horse had bolted, so to speak. I am absolutely sure your co-author wanted NOTHING of that journal released. For him this was about control of information. For him knowledge is power. And he would use what he wanted from it when it suited his needs.

H: Far from welcoming Frank’s action (as you allege),.

SC: It’s not an allegation—it’s a matter of public record. Your co-author publicly thanked FD for posting the hi-res image of that section of Vyse’s journal. Look:

”Thanks for putting this up.” – Martin Stower (from here).

H: …Martin was very unhappy about it.

SC: If your co-author was so “unhappy about it” – why did he publicly thank FD for posting the hi-res image? Are you now saying that his thanking FD for posting the higher res image of that page section (CD3) was just one more of his deceptions?

H: It created a problem…

SC: Oh, I bet it did. For one, it showed that Vyse actually HAD drawn those 3 disk lines in the lower cartouche disk perfectly clearly, a fact which totally undermined what your co-author had said to me earlier in that thread i.e. dealing with the unclear, low-res disk detail as though THAT was what Vyse had actually drawn there, explaining to me that Vyse had drawn the larger lined disk (above the cartouche) to make clearer the detail in the unclear cartouche disk beneath. Which was a complete lie because your co-author KNEW at the time that the disk detail Vyse had actually drawn on that page section (CD3) was perfectly clear and thus your co-author’s explanation to me of the unclear disk detail was a complete fraud. So yes—I can totally get how FD’s releasing the hi-res image “created a problem”. Alas, I just wasn’t sharp enough at the time to realize the contradiction in your co-author’s explanation of the low-res disk detail. But I got there in the end.

H:… there is such a thing as copyright, as I’m sure even you know by now. Contrary to your curious imaginings, Martin was not “running” Frank and had no control over what he did. As Frank seemed not to grasp the problem (which I tried explaining to him also), Martin decided that the best policy in the circumstances was “least said, soonest mended” (as he told you, here and here).

SC: Copyright my bahookie!! Least said better chance of your co-author's deception going unnoticed. Your co-author wanted to control the information, to control the knowledge because to him that knowledge was power. It gave him a big advantage in debating anyone on the Vyse fraud allegation first made by Sitchin, most notably in his debates with the late Alan F. Alford. If copyright was such an issue to your co-author, then all he had to do was either draw his own impressions of the relevant drawings made by Vyse from the relevant journal pages. Copyright issue solved. Or he could have merely quoted relevant text or described relevant drawings from the journal pages. Again – copyright issue solved. You know, like what your co-author actually DID (here in a discussion with Alford in October 1998):

“A concrete example: Vyse copied one inscription containing the cartouche names `Khufu' and `Shepseskaf' in close proximity - he recorded this in his manuscript journal and reported it in his book - but we DON'T find the cartouche of Shepseskaf in the pyramid. Take another look at that illustration from Wilkinson's `Manners and Customs', Alan. You'll find that the cartouche of Shepseskaf was UNASSIGNED in 1837 - so it could (for all Vyse knew) have been a second cartouche name of Khufu. (Most pharaohs had two completely different cartouche names.) Col. `Lucky' Vyse once again avoided the pitfall.” – Martin Stower (From here. Emphasis mine).

Or this April 2013 example from him, giving an image of some text from Vyse’s journal:


From here.

So just DON’T give me your rubbish that your co-author was concerned about copyright. He has clearly released information from that journal when it suited his needs to do so in debates about Vyse.

H: So, as you’re not in a position to know anything about what really happened, I would suggest that now would be a good time to stop coming up with baseless speculations.

SC: They’re not “speculations” but matters of public record that anyone can see.

And I suggest you get used to hearing this because it won't be going away any time soon because that is what your co-author DID. And, as I told you earlier, it was a disgraceful and unforgivable act of deception to manipulate a particular narrative that distorted this little part of our history. THAT is what your co-author DID by his self-serving deeds.

More...

Continued...

H: Given your principled objection to “withholding” information…

SC: Again—my main concern is what your co-author DID with the information that was released. He used and abused that info that was released by FD to present a totally false narrative. And he could ONLY present that false narrative by completely ignoring the other information on that particular journal page that totally undermined his false narrative.

But it gets worse.

In 2009 that X above the disk (CD3, FD low-res version) was explained away by your co-author ONLY to state that Vyse was making a correction to the detail in that disk i.e. that those edit marks were error/correction marks. Today, however, he is now (according to you) using that X above CD3 (along with the one above CD0) as a reference mark that Vyse made to 'key together' the two cartouches on that page (even although they were both clearly labelled by Vyse as being from Campbell’s Chamber).

Why didn't your co-author mention this 11 years ago, that the X was actually being used to 'key together' another cartouche (that your co-author knew at that time existed on that page)? So what exactly is it your co-author is saying? Was his 2009 explanation for the X the right explanation? Or was his 2020 explanation the right one? Which?

Imagine your co-author had said back in 2009 that the X mark in this section of the page was to reference and “key together” another cartouche on the page not visible in this section FD published, then people would, rightly, have asked, “What other cartouche on the page?” Hence why your co-author made no mention back then of this “keying together” of cartouches (which you tell us he now believes) since to have done so would have let the proverbial cat out of the bag. He only NOW claims this X is about “keying together” the two cartouches on that page because:

1) I revealed the info of the second contradictory cartouche on that page.
2) His initial claim of the X mark (CD3) as being part of Vyse correction of the unclear disk detail is now no longer tenable (as a result of the full page being revealed by me).

Had I not revealed that full page with its second contradictory cartouche, doubtless your co-author would still have been claiming, to this day, that the X above the disk of the lower cartouche was merely about Vyse correcting the unclear cartouche disk there (CD3).

And THAT, Hermione, is deception. THAT Hermione, is manipulating evidence to fit a particular narrative.

H: ….doubtless we will soon see all of your images of the journal - which, oddly, you have proven reluctant to show us, despite your declaring that you would publish them “in due course” when Martin suggested (in 2014) that you do so. Your “presentation” of this material has instead been begrudging, confined to what serves your agenda and heavily laden with your editorial. Sorry, but I see no reason to accept your ipse dixit that it’s not “withholding information” when you do it:

SC: I’ve released and published a damn sight more than you or your co-author ever have (and more to come in my next book – be sure to look out for it). I do not have to release every page of Vyse’s journal (as you seem to be stupidly insisting), only those pages that are relevant to his fraud. The real difference between myself and you and your co-author is that I release and publish ALL of the relevant material (i.e. relevant to the fraud question). I have articles all over the place presenting various aspects of evidence. But what I DON’T do (unlike your co-author) is look at a page in Vyse’s private journal and decide ONLY to build a narrative around just SOME of the evidence on the page because that particular piece of evidence fits with what I believe. I build my narrative on ALL the relevant information on the page. And that is something you and your co-author have yet to do with the page currently under question. So, on that vein, what is your answer to the following:



Why did Vyse place a X above the disk in CD0?

Why did he also place a X above the disk in CD3?

Why has he cross-referenced the two striated disks with a ‘|’ stroke?

Why has he placed a X through the base of CD3 cartouche?

What do you think the ‘||’ mark placed below “Cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber” could mean?

Why would Vyse have to be doing ANY of this 3 weeks after the alleged discovery of this cartouche?

Those are the questions I'm sure more than me would like to see you and your co-author answer.

SC