It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
SC: Well according to the testimony of Humphries Brewer (passed down to his great grandfather, Walter Allen), some of the painted marks were new whilst some marks were repainted. Only with proper scientific analysis can we hope to determine which is which.
Harte: IIRC, Walter Allen is supposed to have told this story to one of his children, who finally wrote it in a letter, and that's the full extent of the evidence for this claim.
SC: Not quite sure what you mean but if it helps, my view has always been that Surid/Sophis/Khufu built the Great Pyramid.
Harte: What I meant is that, even assuming that Vyse forged Khufu's name, which, as I recall, was the basis for your speculation in your thread "Who was Khufu," that wouldn't invalidate the rest of the glyphs found there, and Eghyptian hieroglyphics certainly do not date to 10,00- ybp.
SC: Well, the ancient Egyptians would probably argue that because they tell us their civilization is tens of thousands of years old. Egyptologists simply dismiss it because the very idea doesn’t fit their own narrative.
Harte: No, the narriticve itself is evidence based. There's no evidence for an earlier Egyptian Civilization. The fact that the Egyptians may have made this claim (where - are you reaching to Plato here?) is meaningless.
Harte: That is, the Egyptians also said that Osiris was murdered, chopped into bits, and his body scattered but later the parts were put back together and his zombified corpse fathered a child with Isis - Horus.
Do you believe everything the Egyptians said?
Harte: Alternately, the Egyptians themselves claimed that the Great Pyramid was Khufu's. You are placing Khufu at 10,000 ybp? What about his name in the king's list for the 4th Dynasty?
Harte: How, then, do you explain the hundreds of C14 dates already acquired from the GP? They don't go even nearly that far back.
Harte: I don't think anything about Hawass and what he says is "either-or." Hawass is Hawass - he was probably p.o.ed that day about something - probably some C14 dates that came back useless through contamination.
“Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology... carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." – Dr Zahi Hawass
SC: Here it is:
Rosellini’s 1832 Book with Khufu Cartouche
Harte: Thanks. Now that I see it, I realize I had already seen that sometime in the past. Do you think Vyse was aware of it?
SC: Yes—and they say something about KHUFU. That is how Egyptology links the pyramid to this king. As long as Howard-Vyse can recognize the Khufu cartouche, he can copy any piece of text that contains the name Khufu. And often Khufu’s birth name will be placed alongside his Horus name in texts so it is not unsurprising to find the Horus name in these chambers either.
Harte: And the names of the work gangs? What, were these phrases laying around somewhere on some relic for Vyse to copy from?
SC: I think you’re missing the point. It is not impossible to fake inscriptions in these hard-to-get-at places. It can be done. The question is whether or not it WAS done and WHAT was done (i.e. which are genuine and which are fake, if any)? I am simply saying we need to be doing more scientific analysis.
Harte: So, how can you explain the fact that Samuel Birch - the leading Eghyptologist at the time, didn't recognize some of the glyphs? Where did Vyse get these?
Harte: Wouldn't a Vyse forgery therefore indicate that Vyse, who couldn't read hieroglyphics, would need to know more about hieroglyphics than Samuel Birch - an authority on the subject - in order for him to forge legitimate hieroglyphs that Birch couldn't identify?
Harte: Also, some of the glyphs are upside-down in the chambers. This is (of course) because they were written on the stones in the quarry (indications like numbered blocks, conditions like "fine" for the stone, etc.) What would compel a forger to write upside down words he didn't even know the meanings of?
Harte: Lastly, what about the fact that Vyse found hieratic script instead of the more formal glyphs? Will you claim that, at the time, Egyptology was already aware that hieratic was in use in the 4th Dynasty? That is, if they were unaware (and some of the main objections at the time regarding Vyse's find were based on the "knowledge" that heiratic hadn't been developed in the 4th Dynasty,) why on Earth would a forger use a script that "everyone" knew at the time was not developed by the 4th Dynasty? Did he have a subconscious need to be caught?
SC: Could Howard-Vyse tell the difference is the question that needs to be asked. Probably not.
Harte: If he couldn't, and he was copying from Materia Hieroglyphica, then how did he even get hold of the hieratic version?
BM: You refer to the "Humphreys Brewer" letter as both an "eyewitness account" and as "testimony." (Brewer, for those just tuning in, was a mason and a member of Vyse's team - allegedly - as no records of such a person exist.) The letter neither qualifies as an 'eyewitness account', and it absolutely is not 'testimony.'
BM: As pointed out in the links I've posted earlier, the letter was written in 1954 (or so it's claimed), long after this Brewer was dead. The letter was written by a great-grandson of Brewer, Walter Allen.
BM: He wrote the page based on his recollection of a conversation that took place between his mother and another woman, with his mother recalling it from her father, Wm. Marchant Brewer. This letter doesn't even qualify as "second-hand", it's a third-hand hearsay account of Brewer's exploits.
BM: There's no mention of any Brewer in Vyse's journal - odd, given that Vyse had apparently become so annoyed by this Brewer he banished him from Egypt.
BM: The letter purports to contain a timeline of Brewer's travels, after being ejected from Giza by Vyse over this alleged dispute in 1837, it (the letter) states he immediately returns home, but then we see a travel itinerary that takes him all over the Middle East and Europe before returning home.
BM: There is another allegation made by Sitchin, the source for all these "Humphreys Brewer" claims, published by Sitchin in "Journeys to the Mythical Past"
BM: ... that W. Allen produced additional pages claiming that Brewer had also met with Karl Richard Lepsius, when Lepsius, and I quote: "invited Humphreys to join him when he wanted to examine the 'marks' inside the pyramid - but both were refused permission by Vyse." (that's written in the Allen letter).
BM: Lepsius first arrived in Egypt in 1842. Not only was this long after Brewer had allegedly left Egypt (in 1837), but Vyse was also long gone from Egypt (Vyse was in England in 1842). The dates clearly don't correlate. There is also no mention of a "Humphreys Brewer" in Lepsius' journals either.
That's two recognized and pioneering archeologists in Egypt that failed to make any mention of a "Humphreys Brewer" in their journals, one of them so angered by him that he banished him from Egypt, and the other who so highly prized his opinion that he invited him to review the inscriptions in the relieving chambers with him - yet neither ever mentioned a "Brewer" in their journals.
BM: Oh, and neither Sitchin nor Walter Allen could ever actually produce any of these documents Allen supposedly had.
BM: Someone took the time to analyze Sitchin's claims, blow by blow, here:
"Revelation of the Pyramids": Sitchin, or not Sitchin ?
BM: The whole Walter Allen affair just doesn't add up. It offers nothing in the way of proof of a forgery.
BM: The only other thing you offer in your post is a character assassination of Howard-Vyse.
A keen, amateur genealogist, Walter Allen’s account of his great grandfather’s activities at Giza was written into his logbook from a number of written and oral sources. He relayed in his logbook his great grandfather’s eye-witness account of Howard-Vyse’s fraudulent practices. Unfortunately, we do not have access to Brewer’s original letter—his own eye-witness account. But nevertheless, enough of that eye-witness account was preserved within the Brewer/Pattengill /Allen family and passed down to Walter Allen.
Document: The Evening Leader, Corning, Sat 30 July 1921
. . . For many years he was a surveyor for the crown having been decorated by the king for the building of a bridge across the Danube at Budapest. . . .
SC: As stated above, without these actual letters, it is difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to assess these particular claims. All we will end up doing is engaging in an endless game of whatiferry. And I do not have time for that to be honest.
Vyse [this is the father, Gen. Richard Vyse - BM], a naive politician, took his orders from the Duke of Cumberland, who proposed to enlist him for a party of ‘King’s men’. No sooner was he elected than his patience was sorely tried when ‘old Vyse’, a Beverley freeman, having died, the rumour reached London that the general was no more. Six candidates sprang up, foremost among them William Smith*, endorsed by the Grenville ministry at the instigation of his friends Lord and Lady Holland. Alderman Prinsep proceeded to Beverley to canvass, only to discover that Gen. Vyse was not dead and far from amused.8 In 1807, however, Vyse stood down in favour of his son, who professed perfect independence of party. The third man, Maj. Staple whose platform was ‘No Popery’, got nowhere, and two other contenders, Alderman Jarratt and John Wray junior, withdrew their pretensions. Staple petitioned, alleging bribery and treating, to no avail. In 1812 it was reported that he had ‘not a shilling’ to maintain his interest.9
And there, in a nutshell, is your (well Sitchin's, really) allegation that Vyse was a "fraudster."
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.
British History Online
[Minutes of Evidence taken before the Beverley Bribery Commission]
[Joseph Hind, examined by Commissioner Barstow on 13 September 1869]
23,935. What are you, Mr. Hind?—Deputy registrar of deeds for the East Riding of Yorkshire.
23,936. How long have you been in Beverley?—All my life.
24.055. (Mr. Barstow.) They were all bribed for Keane?—They were all paid 1l. We do not call it bribery. It is the old customary payment.
24,056. (Mr. Barstow.) Very well, we will distinguish.
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.
BM: Staples petition notwithstanding, there had been no further accusations of improprieties against Vyse over a long career…
BM: Graham Hancock, who is firmly in the fringe theory camp, had permission to inspect the inscriptions, and he refuted the Sitchin forgery theory. He accepts the established dating (4th Dynasty). He also stated during his inspection that mineral deposits that would take many centuries to form (even longer in Egypt given it's arid environment) were in evidence growing over the red ochre paint as one of the reasons for his conversion to the accepted dating.
In Fingerprints I supported the Vyse forgery theory. Later when I got into the relieving chambers myself and saw that some quarry marks disappear far back into the gaps between the blocks I felt that I must be wrong to support the forgery theory -- because no one could have got a brush into those gaps to carry out the forgery. Therefore the quarry marks must be genuine and must have been put on the blocks before they were put into place in the chamber. Accordingly I retracted the position I had taken in Fingerprints.
It's possible I threw the baby out with the bathwater with that retraction. Unlike the unforgeable quarry marks positioned between the blocks, the Khufu cartouche is in plain view and could easily have been forged by Vyse.
I do not insist it was, I just accept that it could have been, and that some interesting doubts have been raised over its authenticity. I await further evidence one way or the other. - Graham Hackock (source)
SC: Have you read Howard-Vyse’s journal in the British Museum?
Or have you only read his published ‘Operations’ book which is, naturally, based on his journal notes? Whilst Brewer is not mentioned by name in Howard-Vyse’s published book, it is hardly a mystery as to why that would be the case.
If someone has accused you of fraudulent practices why would you even mention this in your published book? Safer to just write the individual concerned out of the story altogether . . .
. . . although, intriguingly, Howard-Vyse mentions two masons that were helping him but only mentions one of them by name. Why not the other?
He also makes mention in his published book of a false charge being made against him and Col. Campbell to be published in an English newspaper. He fails to elaborate in his published book who made the charge and its exact nature.
A slanderous paragraph, intended to be inserted in the English newspapers, was this day shewn to me, which accused Colonel Campbell of having improperly laid himself under obligations to the Pacha by obtaining the firmaun; and which implied that the Colonel and myself intended to make our fortunes under the pretence of scientific researches. This absurd accusation is only worthy of notice as affording a specimen of the anonymous attacks to which the Colonel is exposed, from the adventurers who infest Egypt.
I invite discussants to consider this Wikipedia piece on the famous anti-slavery campaigner, William Wilberforce:
Wilberforce began to consider a political career while still at university, and during the winter of 1779–80 he and Pitt frequently watched House of Commons debates from the gallery. Pitt, already set on a political career, encouraged Wilberforce to join him in obtaining a parliamentary seat. In September 1780, at the age of twenty-one and while still a student, Wilberforce was elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Kingston upon Hull, spending over £8,000 to ensure he received the necessary votes, as was the custom of the time. . . .
On the criterion employed by some (in denouncing Vyse), this makes Wilberforce a “crook” and utterly negates the achievements of his life.
If you doubt that Wilberforce bribed voters, I suggest you look at this:
Note that Kingston upon Hull and Beverley were adjacent constituencies. It would seem that similar customs prevailed.
Wilberforce, a deeply religious man, was a leading light in the campaign for the abolition of slavery. (An act was finally passed in 1833, just three days before his death).
The point is that Wilberforce's moral stature isn't compromised by the 1780 Hull election.
”Making my way over the uneven blocks that compose the floor of Campbell’s Chamber, using a copy of Vyse’s original drawings as a guide, I found the long-sought cartouche in the back corner surrounded by hideous nineteenth- and twentieth-century graffiti. But the cartouche was there, sure enough, and it indeed read “Khufu”! So is this the end of the story? Are the traditional Egyptologists correct in their assertion that the Great Pyramid is nothing more than the gigantic tomb of King Khufu? Maybe not. Indeed on seeing the cartouche, I knew this was just the beginning of my adventure.
For one thing, this particular cartouche is turned up on end, and I would soon see in the other chambers that many of the red-painted inscriptions are completely up side down. What is going on here? Well, no one was meant to view these inscriptions once the pyramid was completed and access to these chambers cut off. Vyse had suggested they were nothing but “quarry marks” put on the blocks by the gangs that cut, hauled, and positioned the stone. But was Howard Vyse being totally honest? Had maybe his workmen who blasted and chiseled their way into these chambers in fact drawn ea [sic] these crude “Egyptian” inscriptions on the blocks themselves? Were these just fakes? Studying them closely, however, they looked authentically ancient to me. I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia, and the inscriptions continue under the overlying blocks.
BM: Again, you claim he is guilty of electoral fraud but there is simply no proof of this. He has never been tried or convicted of such. At best, you have one party (Staples) making his allegations after losing to both Vyse and Wharton.
”Not that this lets him [Howard-Vyse] off the hook: it looks like the petition [of Mr Staples] should have succeeded.” (Source)
BM: The point is that Wilberforce's moral stature isn't compromised by the 1780 Hull election.
BM: Correction to the above, it was Robert M. Schoch who observed the mineral deposits layering over the quarry marks:
"I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia, and the inscriptions continue under the overlying blocks."
Just because Wilberforce ultimately came good after having broken the law in his earlier life is no guide that anyone else that breaks the law in similar fashion will all go on to perform only good deeds, that such individuals will never again resort to their original form i.e. criminality to achieve selfish ends.
. . . But was Howard Vyse being totally honest? Had maybe his workmen who blasted and chiseled their way into these chambers in fact drawn these crude “Egyptian” inscriptions on the blocks themselves? Were these just fakes? Studying them closely, however, they looked authentically ancient to me [my emphasis—Martin Stower]. I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia, and the inscriptions continue under the overlying blocks.
He committed fraud ergo he is a fraudster.
BM: Lepsius first arrived in Egypt in 1842. Not only was this long after Brewer had allegedly left Egypt (in 1837), but Vyse was also long gone from Egypt (Vyse was in England in 1842).
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
BM: Lepsius first arrived in Egypt in 1842. Not only was this long after Brewer had allegedly left Egypt (in 1837), but Vyse was also long gone from Egypt (Vyse was in England in 1842).
SC: I must have overlooked your comment above--apologies. Contrary to what you say above, Howard-Vyse was in Egypt in 1842.
SCedit on 8/3/2014 by Scott Creighton because: Fix tag.
. . . If we except the celebrated and well-known examination of the Pyramids in the year 1887, by Colonel Howard Vyse, assisted by the accomplished architect Perring, little had been done to promote a more minute investigation of this remarkable spot; . . .