It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Crime In The Great Pyramid: The Evidence Mounts

page: 4
70
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Sorry if this has been covered already but what does this mean then in the context of similar markings found in the shaft in 2011?




posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: CajunMetal
Sorry if this has been covered already but what does this mean then in the context of similar markings found in the shaft in 2011?


Some of these painted marks within the 'Vyse Chambers' are authentic and some are fake. We know this because an eye-witness, a chap by the name of Humphries Brewer, apparently saw Vyse's two assistants, Raven & Hill, commit fraud. Brewer apparently ended up working with Vyse at Giza in 1837 (purely by accident) and wrote letters of his time there, including the fraud he witnessed, to his family back in England, UK.

These letters were passed down the family to Brewer's great grandson, Walter Martin Allen of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Allen was an amateur genealogist and was researching his family roots with elderly family members in 1954. He was also a keen Ham Radio enthusiast and wrote down the discussions with his family in his ham radio logbook (copies of which exist today). Allen was told by his family elders that his great grandfather worked with a 'Colonel Visse' at Giza. In his notes, Allen writes, "Faint marks were repainted, some were new." He also mentions a dispute his great grandfather had with two of Vyse's assistants, Raven & Hill, about these painted marks. And it seems Brewer was kicked off the Giza site because of this dispute.

The point here is this - SOME of the marks in these chambers, according to Allen's account passed on from his great grandfather, were "repainted, some were new". In other words, there are some marks in those 'Vyse Chambers' that are probably genuine. Our task today is to determine those that are genuine and those that are fake.

Clearly those in the small chamber at the end of the Queens' Chamber's southern shaft are genuine because no human could ever possibly gain access to this small space (only a few feet cubed) since it was sealed. The problem with the marks in this small space, however, is that there is no consensus as to what they say. Indeed, they might not even be 4th dynasty Egyptian at all.

SC
edit on 28/6/2018 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

(snip)

Some of these painted marks within the 'Vyse Chambers' are authentic and some are fake.


What is your evidence for the claim? Surely a simpler theory to explain the presence of the inscriptions would be preferable here?


We know this because an eye-witness, a chap by the name of Humphries Brewer, apparently saw Vyse's two assistants, Raven & Hill, commit fraud. Brewer apparently ended up working with Vyse at Giza in 1837 (purely by accident) and wrote letters of his time there, including the fraud he witnessed, to his family back in England, UK.


“Wrote letters:” well, how do you know this? Have you seen the letters?

In fact, having looked at Sitchin’s book, I’d say that “wrote letters of his time there, including the fraud he witnessed” was Sitchin’s gloss. The copy of the logbook just says something about “some of Humfreys letters.” It doesn’t say what date they were written, or whether they were written from Giza.


These letters were passed down the family to Brewer's great grandson, Walter Martin Allen of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


So why didn’t this great-grandson, Walter Allen, produce the letters when requested by Sitchin?


Allen was an amateur genealogist and was researching his family roots with elderly family members in 1954. He was also a keen Ham Radio enthusiast and wrote down the discussions with his family in his ham radio logbook (copies of which exist today). Allen was told by his family elders that his great grandfather worked with a 'Colonel Visse' at Giza. In his notes, Allen writes, "Faint marks were repainted, some were new." He also mentions a dispute his great grandfather had with two of Vyse's assistants, Raven & Hill, about these painted marks. And it seems Brewer was kicked off the Giza site because of this dispute.


Hm. Doesn't sound all that convincing, does it?


The point here is this - SOME of the marks in these chambers, according to Allen's account passed on from his great grandfather, were "repainted, some were new". In other words, there are some marks in those 'Vyse Chambers' that are probably genuine. Our task today is to determine those that are genuine and those that are fake.

Clearly those in the small chamber at the end of the Queens' Chamber's southern shaft are genuine because no human could ever possibly gain access to this small space (only a few feet cubed) since it was sealed. The problem with the marks in this small space, however, is that there is no consensus as to what they say. Indeed, they might not even be 4th dynasty Egyptian at all.


I see. So what grounds and qualifications do you have for judging whether or not the marks are 4th Dynasty?



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton


(snip)


Sitchin was tallking nonsense.


So why are you happy to repeat Sitchin’s "nonsense" about Humphries Brewer, Walter Allen, the letters and the logbook?

How are you able to tell when Sitchin is talking nonsense, and when he isn't?



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton


(snip)


Sitchin was tallking nonsense.


So why are you happy to repeat Sitchin’s "nonsense" about Humphries Brewer, Walter Allen, the letters and the logbook?

How are you able to tell when Sitchin is talking nonsense, and when he isn't?


My reasoning is explained in 'The Great Pyramid Hoax'.

SC



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

(snip)

SC: Some of these painted marks within the 'Vyse Chambers' are authentic and some are fake.


H: What is your evidence for the claim? Surely a simpler theory to explain the presence of the inscriptions would be preferable here?


Walter Allen's logbook corroborated by Vyse's private journal. Where's your evidence that these painted marks are authentic?


SC: We know this because an eye-witness, a chap by the name of Humphries Brewer, apparently saw Vyse's two assistants, Raven & Hill, commit fraud. Brewer apparently ended up working with Vyse at Giza in 1837 (purely by accident) and wrote letters of his time there, including the fraud he witnessed, to his family back in England, UK.

H: “Wrote letters:” well, how do you know this? Have you seen the letters?


I don't need to. I trust the logbook account passed down by Walter Allen. I do not see that he had any reason to lie about what he wrote in his brief logbook account. Do you? If so, what proof can you present that Allen's logbook account is a fabrication?


H: In fact, having looked at Sitchin’s book, I’d say that “wrote letters of his time there, including the fraud he witnessed” was Sitchin’s gloss.


And your proof of that assertion is what exactly?


H: The copy of the logbook just says something about “some of Humfreys letters.” It doesn’t say what date they were written, or whether they were written from Giza.


The logbook account tells us of Brewer's brief time working at Giza with Vyse. I rather doubt Allen's elderly aunts and mother would have been alive to hear first hand of Brewer's time in Egypt so, logically, one must assume that the details of such were passed down orally or in written form. Allen's logbook speaks of letters and that is the most logical and secure means of passing down information. I don't actually care which. Allen's logbook account exists and its spotlight on this matter won't be going away any time soon. If you don't accept the account, that's entirely your choice and you're perfectly entitled to it. Just don't expect me to share it.


SC: These letters were passed down the family to Brewer's great grandson, Walter Martin Allen of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

H: So why didn’t this great-grandson, Walter Allen, produce the letters when requested by Sitchin?


Have you never lost a letter? Have you never heard of anyone you know of who has lost a letter? I have. Several times. Sh!t happens. And especially so after nearly three decades. I trust Allen's logbook. That you don't is your problem.


SC: Allen was an amateur genealogist and was researching his family roots with elderly family members in 1954. He was also a keen Ham Radio enthusiast and wrote down the discussions with his family in his ham radio logbook (copies of which exist today). Allen was told by his family elders that his great grandfather worked with a 'Colonel Visse' at Giza. In his notes, Allen writes, "Faint marks were repainted, some were new." He also mentions a dispute his great grandfather had with two of Vyse's assistants, Raven & Hill, about these painted marks. And it seems Brewer was kicked off the Giza site because of this dispute.

H: Hm. Doesn't sound all that convincing, does it?


There are sufficient clues in the full text of Allen's logbook that convinces me that this is an authentic account of events that actually took place in 1837 and beyond. See 'The Great Pyramid Hoax' for more of my reasoning on this. But you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. Just don't expect me to share it.


SC: The point here is this - SOME of the marks in these chambers, according to Allen's account passed on from his great grandfather, were "repainted, some were new". In other words, there are some marks in those 'Vyse Chambers' that are probably genuine. Our task today is to determine those that are genuine and those that are fake.

Clearly those in the small chamber at the end of the Queens' Chamber's southern shaft are genuine because no human could ever possibly gain access to this small space (only a few feet cubed) since it was sealed. The problem with the marks in this small space, however, is that there is no consensus as to what they say. Indeed, they might not even be 4th dynasty Egyptian at all.

H: I see. So what grounds and qualifications do you have for judging whether or not the marks are 4th Dynasty?


Read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. Oh, and while you're at it--you might want to try and address the actual content of this thread i.e. the two pieces of evidence presented in my recent article. You'll find it in the OP.

SC
edit on 4/7/2018 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Sitchin was tallking nonsense.



H: So why are you happy to repeat Sitchin’s "nonsense" about Humphries Brewer, Walter Allen, the letters and the logbook?

How are you able to tell when Sitchin is talking nonsense, and when he isn't?



SC: My reasoning is explained in 'The Great Pyramid Hoax'.


So why are you posting arguments here, on a discussion board?



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Sitchin was tallking nonsense.



H: So why are you happy to repeat Sitchin’s "nonsense" about Humphries Brewer, Walter Allen, the letters and the logbook?

How are you able to tell when Sitchin is talking nonsense, and when he isn't?



SC: My reasoning is explained in 'The Great Pyramid Hoax'.


So why are you posting arguments here, on a discussion board?


Posting arguments? I posted my latest research for the benefit of ATS readership. Now, if you want to argue about that research I suggest you actually read it first and I will happily engage any points you may raise. But if all you wish to do here is to have an argument about having an argument then you're on your own. I have no time for time-wasters.

SC



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
(Previously quoted text)

SC: Walter Allen's logbook corroborated by Vyse's private journal. Where's your evidence that these painted marks are authentic?

(End of previously quoted text)

Where’s your evidence that the logbook is authentic? Choosing to “trust” it does not make the question go away.

Where exactly does Vyse’s journal (which you once admitted you could barely read) say that “faint marks were repainted” and “some were new”?

Where does it state that Humphries Brewer witnessed an act of forgery? (Never mind that Allen’s logbook doesn’t say Brewer did witness such a crime; you’ve chosen to “trust” Sitchin on this.)

Please transcribe a sentence or two of what the journal has to say about Humphries Brewer. This should surely be easy for you, if you can speak with such confidence of what the journal “corroborates.”

(Previously quoted text)

SC: I don't need to. I trust the logbook account passed down by Walter Allen. I do not see that he had any reason to lie about what he wrote in his brief logbook account. Do you? If so, what proof can you present that Allen's logbook account is a fabrication?

(End of previously quoted text)

Let’s get this clear:

(a) you’re not providing evidence yourself; but

(b) you demand that others should provide evidence.

But surely that’s a double standard?

You refer to the letters rhetorically as extant evidence – but then tell us that you don’t need them.

Photocopies (and images of photocopies) are not accepted in courts of law. Yet you’re counterposing the copies of this logbook (which claim that Brewer saw repainted marks) to other, undoubtedly authentic, documents which say otherwise. These genuine documents include Vyse’s journal, which describes the first discovery of the marks entirely as a real event. You should know, you’ve seen it – the actual manuscript from 1837, and not an image of a photocopy in some book of doubtful value by Sitchin.

(Previously quoted text)

H: In fact, having looked at Sitchin’s book, I’d say that “wrote letters of his time there, including the fraud he witnessed” was Sitchin’s gloss.

SC: And your proof of that assertion is what exactly?

(End of previously quoted text)

Careful attention to detail.

(Previously quoted text)

H: The copy of the logbook just says something about “some of Humfreys letters.” It doesn’t say what date they were written, or whether they were written from Giza.

SC: The logbook account tells us of Brewer's brief time working at Giza with Vyse. I rather doubt Allen's elderly aunts and mother would have been alive to hear first hand of Brewer's time in Egypt so, logically, one must assume that the details of such were passed down orally or in written form. Allen's logbook speaks of letters and that is the most logical and secure means of passing down information. I don't actually care which. Allen's logbook account exists and its spotlight on this matter won't be going away any time soon. If you don't accept the account, that's entirely your choice and you're perfectly entitled to it. Just don't expect me to share it.

(End of previously quoted text)

Now we’re back to the phantom letters, conjured into existence by “logic” this time (or, as some might call it, “speculation.”) You told us that these letters were passed down to Walter Martin Allen. Are you now withdrawing that claim and admitting that the letters are purely hypothetical?

It’s fairly clear that you don’t care about the reliability of the means of passing the story on.

You “rather doubt” (that “Allen's elderly aunts and mother would have been alive to hear first hand of Brewer's time in Egypt”)? Don’t you know? How does the elderly relatives’ not having the story first hand from Humphries Brewer boost your case?

(Previously quoted text)

SC: Have you never lost a letter? Have you never heard of anyone you know of who has lost a letter? I have. Several times. Sh!t happens. And especially so after nearly three decades. I trust Allen's logbook. That you don't is your problem.

(End of previously quoted text)

You told us that the letters were passed down to Walter, a man so keen on preserving the family history that he was writing it down in 1954 – and now you’re telling us that he carelessly lost them? At the same time as carefully keeping the logbook?

Chucking out historical method in favour of arbitrarily “trusting” what suits you might be a bit of a problem for someone who apparently wants be to be perceived as an historian.

(Previously quoted text)

SC: There are sufficient clues in the full text of Allen's logbook that convinces me that this is an authentic account of events that actually took place in 1837 and beyond. See 'The Great Pyramid Hoax' for more of my reasoning on this. But you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. Just don't expect me to share it.

(End of previously quoted text)

The full text of Allen’s logbook? Did you mean that there are parts of the logbook separate from what was reproduced by Sitchin? Do you have access to those other parts?

(Previously quoted text)

SC: Read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. Oh, and while you're at it--you might want to try and address the actual content of this thread i.e. the two pieces of evidence presented in my recent article. You'll find it in the OP.

(End of previously quoted text)

I notice you haven’t answered my question: “What grounds and qualifications do you have for judging whether or not the marks are 4th Dynasty?”

(Sorry if the post looks odd: problems with formatting.)



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


Posting arguments? I posted my latest research for the benefit of ATS readership. Now, if you want to argue about that research I suggest you actually read it first and I will happily engage any points you may raise. But if all you wish to do here is to have an argument about having an argument then you're on your own. I have no time for time-wasters..


Posting arguments: my comments were on claims you made in this thread. If you now want to avoid the question by pretending you never made them, then I’m not the one wasting time here.
edit on 5-7-2018 by Hooke because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2018 by Hooke because: Apologies! more problems with formatting ...



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Hooke

Your attempt to misrepresent what I have said in my posts here in order to put words into my mouth that I never said, isn't going to work. If you do not understand my meaning then it is because you haven't read my book which I am NOT about to recite or discuss with you here. Read the book. Once you have done so then you will fully understand my position and why I take the view that Allen's logbook is a genuine account of events of 1837. Until such time, I don't give a hee-haw how many questions you think I am avoiding, you won't be getting an answer to any of them. I hope I've made myself clear on that. Read the book. Understand what I say. Know my position FULLY then, perhaps, we might be able to take your questions above further.

Now, I won't tell you again--this thread concerns the article in my OP presenting new evidence not to be found in my previous book. If you wish to discuss this new evidence in the OP then, by all means, the floor is yours. Otherwise I consider you to be willfully wasting my time.

SC



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

Your attempt to misrepresent what I have said in my posts here in order to put words into my mouth that I never said, isn't going to work. If you do not understand my meaning then it is because you haven't read my book which I am NOT about to recite or discuss with you here. Read the book. Once you have done so then you will fully understand my position and why I take the view that Allen's logbook is a genuine account of events of 1837. Until such time, I don't give a hee-haw how many questions you think I am avoiding, you won't be getting an answer to any of them. I hope I've made myself clear on that. Read the book. Understand what I say. Know my position FULLY then, perhaps, we might be able to take your questions above further.

Now, I won't tell you again--this thread concerns the article in my OP presenting new evidence not to be found in my previous book. If you wish to discuss this new evidence in the OP then, by all means, the floor is yours. Otherwise I consider you to be willfully wasting my time.

SC


On the contrary, what you said was quoted vebatim and is visible in the thread for anyone who wants to check. Show me where I misrepresented you.

I'm disappointed that so much effort seems to have been expended in avoiding questions, when in my view that effort would have been better going into a frank and reasoned response. I am tempted to conclude that you have no answer.

Again, if it’s all in the book, why are you posting here? Why are you posting on a discussion board, if you are not prepared to discuss what you post?



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

Your attempt to misrepresent what I have said in my posts here in order to put words into my mouth that I never said, isn't going to work. If you do not understand my meaning then it is because you haven't read my book which I am NOT about to recite or discuss with you here. Read the book. Once you have done so then you will fully understand my position and why I take the view that Allen's logbook is a genuine account of events of 1837. Until such time, I don't give a hee-haw how many questions you think I am avoiding, you won't be getting an answer to any of them. I hope I've made myself clear on that. Read the book. Understand what I say. Know my position FULLY then, perhaps, we might be able to take your questions above further.

Now, I won't tell you again--this thread concerns the article in my OP presenting new evidence not to be found in my previous book. If you wish to discuss this new evidence in the OP then, by all means, the floor is yours. Otherwise I consider you to be willfully wasting my time.

SC



Again, if it’s all in the book, why are you posting here? Why are you posting on a discussion board, if you are not prepared to discuss what you post?


From my quote above, which you obviously missed. Here it is again:


SC: this thread concerns the article in my OP presenting new evidence not to be found in my previous book. If you wish to discuss this new evidence in the OP then, by all means, the floor is yours.


Let me emphasise this for you.

I am NOT here to recite to you chapter and verse what I've written in my previous book--you will just have to read that for yourself. I am here to discuss--and very happy to discuss--the NEW evidence I present in the OP of this thread. I will discuss what I want to discuss and NOT what you want to discuss. Are we clear on that? How many different ways does that have to be explained to you?

Now stop trying to derail my thread.

SC




top topics



 
70
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join