Men Who Vandalized Great Pyramid To Prove 'Theory' Face Charges

Scott Creighton
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Hello Dragonridr,

Good of you to join us--it has been a while.

Can I suggest that you perhaps go through the thread from where I made my entry and read all of the posts. I think you will find that your comments (above) are somewhat behind the game-line.

Regards,

SC

No what i see is a need for you to disprove evidence to sell your theory. Your attacking a man calling him a fraud when everything is politics. Politicians make enemies and those peole make all kinds of wild claims ATS is a great example go look at the threads. But you have yet to address the fact they couldn't have been faked How did he get the hieroglyphs to follow around blocks set in place. Did he move 10 ton stones because if he did im really impressed. So your accusations of fraud mean nothing even if he stole money from his grandma and beat up little kids doesnt mean he faked the cartouche. Howard Carter is accused of stealing artifacts from his find due to all the artifacts that were sold to museums. . Does that mean his discovery is invalid because he was a thief? See how straw man arguments work? They prove nothing and cloud the issue.So how do you explain the Hieroglyphs continuing around blocks? If you say some where faked then how could they. Since they all show the same deposits if some where faked they would look different. It would be easy to tell the difrence from marks made thousands of years a go and only a hundred.Unless you are trying to convince us he could time travel.

I'm sifting through what records I can find, which I'll name here, but if there are others please indicate what those are;

National Archives, The Howard-Vyse Collection
(nationalarchives.gov.uk)

Col. Campbell:
Colonel Campbell's Report on Egypt in 1840, with Lord Palmerston's Comments
(Google book link)
(Cambridge Journal link - requires login)
Nothing pertaining to Vyse per se, it deals largely with Turks and the political state of affairs in Egypt. It doesn't appear that in 1842 the British Crown had any ongoing archeological operations in Egypt.


Karl Richard Lepsius:
Discoveries in Egypt, Ethiopia and the Peninsula of Sinai: In the Years 1842-1845, During the Mission Sent Out by His Majesty Frederick William IV of Prussia.
(Link Index - Archive.org - most in German)

In addition to the prerequisite Col. Richard William Howard Vyse:
Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837, With an Account of a Voyage Into Upper Egypt, with Appendices;
Vol. 1
Vol. 2

In addition, there are the parliamentary records I posted earlier, which link to numerous instances of the Howard - Vyse line.

Among all this, what I have ascertained is:

Vyse made one foray to Egypt, leaving in August 1837, not returning to England until 1838. He operated under the auspices of Col. Campbell, the Consul-General to the British Crown. Campbell through his intermediary established a firman (edict) from the Pascha (a Turkish equivalent to a Lord), and each officer involved in the expedition would receive a share in the discovered loot. (This was where much of the friction with Cavglia occurred.)

Vyse kept detailed, meticulous records - every day was duly recorded, the operations underway, the number of men/children employed, the work being done, even the temperature, the weather, who was overseeing what operation, etc., and especially sketches, measurement, and drawings, all throughout his journals he carefully detailed in minutia what was taking place. Absent from all this is any entry regarding him being present in Egypt in 1842. He left Egypt in August 1837 and doesn't appear to have ever returned. In 1842 he was involved in the publishing of his memoirs ("Operations" was published 1824), and based on the records listed above, he was engaged in developing his land and notably a restoration of Arundel castle; it seems Vyse inherited a substantial amount of land, not only from his side of the family but from his in-law, the Earl of Stafford. (not to mention, Vyse was also made a part of the estate of Charles, Duke of Norfolk - this bugger was connected!)

Arundel Castle Archives Vol IV A Catalogue (PDF)
(arundelcastle.org)
References 40 documents pertaining to Howard Vyse (Vols. 1-3 also contain references to Vyse but nothing germain to this discussion.)

A guide to family and estate archives held at the Northamptonshire
Record Office - Hunbury to Howard Vyse (PDF) - nothing useful here, although it alludes to over 14 boxes of material regarding the Howard-Vyses and their land holdings.

(The Howards married into the line of Fitzalans, inheriting Arundel Castle in the process, although it would remain in the Howard line)
Arundel Castle History

Conclusion:

Obviously I can't sort through all these records as most are collections held by private institutions and not online. However, none have revealed Vyse to be on any expedition out of England during the year 1842, or indeed after his return from Egypt in 1837. We know for certain he was present in England in 1839, as Vyse presented some of his findings to the British Museum. He also gave lectures that year.

The British Museum also cataloged the artifacts Howard-Vyse brought back from Egypt:

Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum: Department of Oriental...
By British Museum. Dept. of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities
The synopsis above was based on:
A Guide to the Egyptian Galleries, in the Department of Oriental Antiquities, Printed 1874

The guide dove-tails with Howard-Vyse's own journal Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh... (1842), where he also describes the artifacts he returned to England with.

This, I believe, could be a smoking gun - Vyse returned to England bringing with him his treasures and artifacts which he donated to the British Museum. He willingly did so, indeed in his memoirs he speaks of his fallout with Cavglia which in part had to do with Caviglia's displeasure that anything would go to the museum, rather than to the Pasha which would then distribute shares to the members of the expeditions. So in 1837-38, Vyse donated a substantial amount to the Museum, which cataloged them for their Oriental Galleries.

However, if Vyse had made a second foray to Egypt (not a light task in 1842), there are not only no records of such a journey (for a consummate record-keeper like Vyse, unthinkable) there are also NO records by the British Museum of any new donations of antiquities by Vyse. I cannot believe Vyse would have undertaken such a journey and returned empty handed.

I'm currently trying to see if there are records of the "firmans" issued by the Pasha in Egypt which in that era was a requirement for undertaking excavations, as mentioned before a firman is a type of edict or permission granted by the highest ranking Turkish official. We know for a fact Col. Campbell had one for the operations in 1835-7 as it was mentioned numerous times by Vyse in his journals. We also know Lepsius also had a firman from the Pasha for his Prussian operations between 1842-45. What we don't know is if any were issued to other institutions that year, as surely the British Crown would have needed one. No firman, no permission.

With all that said, lets see S. Creighton present the evidence of Vyse being in Egpyt in 1842 as he claimed he possesed.

No way the truth of the pyramids will be accepted as a general understanding. If it did it would destroy the existing control system. Not to say another couldn't stand in its stead but the proper meme and disillusionment must happen first.

It matters not to me, whether Vyse was or wasn't there in 1842. In the end the fact remains that we can't now build what they did then. The knowledge isn't lost, it is simply in the hands of this who seek to rule and profit, therefore there's no need to flaunt it. If releasing knowledge of subtle energy would empower many, they'd want no part in it.

It seems to me arguing over whether the "books" reflect Vyse was or wasn't there at the time quoted is itself a straw man tactic.

reply to post by Rosinitiate

In the end the fact remains that we can't now build what they did then.

Sure we could. And much faster because we have power tools and stuff. There's just no reason to.
4.bp.blogspot.com...

Phage
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

In the end the fact remains that we can't now build what they did then.

Sure we could. And much faster. There's just no reason to.
4.bp.blogspot.com...

Wow! We can lift a 4 ton rock.....I'm mystified.

That is hardly proof. All you "experts" are so "hung" on proof, show me how we are capable of the size, volume, weight and positioning with the same exact materials in the same "time frame" while aligned in the exact same precision and I will accept that I am totally insane and admit myself to psychiatric evaluation.

reply to post by Rosinitiate

That is hardly proof. All you "experts" are so "hung" on proof, show me how we are capable of the size, volume, weight and positioning with the same exact materials in the same "time frame" while aligned in the exact same precision and I will accept that I am totally insane and admit myself to psychiatric evaluation.

Well, it would help if you were a bit more specific about the parameters.
But precision...not too much of a problem. Probably could do somewhat better than the Egyptians.
www.engineersupply.com...

The only thing lacking is a reason.

Phage
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

That is hardly proof. All you "experts" are so "hung" on proof, show me how we are capable of the size, volume, weight and positioning with the same exact materials in the same "time frame" while aligned in the exact same precision and I will accept that I am totally insane and admit myself to psychiatric evaluation.

Well, it would help if you were a bit more specific about the parameters.
But precision...not too much of a problem. Probably could do somewhat better than the Egyptians.
www.engineersupply.com...

The only thing lacking is a reason.

edit on 3/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Pretty neat tools huh? I'm sure they had some nifty ones back then also. I'm most curious about the boreholes in Egypt, Peru, etc. And the inner locking shape pattern and how going from the center, the shapes of each stone mirrors its counterpart on the other side and by doing so makes them earthquake proof. Shame, since we apparently have that knowledge now we haven't been using it to build our humble abodes in a more secure fashion. Just think of the lives saved.

reply to post by Rosinitiate

Pretty neat tools huh? I'm sure they had some nifty ones back then also.

Good enough I suppose. Straight lines aren't that big of a trick.

Shame, since we apparently have that knowledge now we haven't been using it to build our humble abodes in a more secure fashion.

Rigid structures are a bad idea. The Japanese seem to have arrived at a good solution a while back too.
www.atimes.com...

Since building with stone is sort of labor intensive I think the Japanese approach makes more sense.

Phage
Since building with stone is sort of labor intensive I think the Japanese approach makes more sense.

edit on 3/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well that remains to be seen. If I had the choice between hiding out during a massive earthquake, I'd chose Giza over Fukushima.

reply to post by Rosinitiate

I wouldn't.
Lot of 9.0 earthquakes around Giza are there?

reply to post by Phage


There was a 5.9 back in 1992 that killed over 300 and injured over 3,000 with 127 dead and 116 building destroyed in Cairo alone, yet the pyramids stood. No way to tell if they'd survive a 9.0 unless some modeling was done but of course you'd have to take its age and deterioration into account. Even still, I'd put money on its survival.

reply to post by Rosinitiate

Yeah, a pyramid is a pretty stable structure; wider at the base than the top, a lot wider. That's why the Egyptians and others built them that way. It's the only way to build a really tall structure out of stone. That's why mountains have that basic shape.

reply to post by Phage


Yes, but there are sites that have withstood the tests of time with the same basic building design of "rigid structures" that are not pyramids.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


That's not all that tall.

reply to post by Phage


Yeah neither were these.

reply to post by Rosinitiate

Yup.
Nor were those. But they did have roofs.

Phage
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

Yeah, a pyramid is a pretty stable structure; wider at the base than the top, a lot wider. That's why the Egyptians and others built them that way. It's the only way to build a really tall structure out of stone. That's why mountains have that basic shape.

This might be how a structural engineer would view the pyramids, but in the case of Egyptian religious views, the pyramid represented the resurrection from the Duat through the sacred or primeval mound.


From the Book of Caverns, Pharaoh Merenptah


Utterences, Pyramid Texts: Im Duat

Basically the pyramid was the path to the afterlife, representing the "primeval mound." But from a practical standpoint, pyramids and mastaba are basic structures that are easy to understand and master, children playing with blocks will invariably build pyramids (when not clogging toilets with them).

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

That second image is of a pretty flat pyramid.
It did take a while before they found out what would work best though, as far as getting tall goes.

reply to post by dragonridr


Hello Dragonridr,

DR: No what i see is a need for you to disprove evidence to sell your theory.

SC: It is not for me to disprove anything. It is for orthodoxy to prove its case. You cannot disprove something that has not yet been proven. The markings in the 'Relieving Chambers' of the GP have not (as far as we know) been subject to any official scientific testing thus they have not been scientifically proven to be genuine. For goodness sake, if the Catholic Church can scientifically test the Shroud of Turin, why the reluctance of Egyptology to have these markings scientifically tested?

DR: Your attacking a man calling him a fraud when everything is politics.

SC: I am merely presenting FACTS about Howard-Vyse that present him in a less than favourable light. That may be hard for some to see and accept but those are the facts. Howard-Vyse bought 932 votes in order to secure his election victory. That was illegal. It was electoral fraud. Little point in trying to shoot the messenger.

DR: Politicians make enemies and those peole make all kinds of wild claims ATS is a great example go look at the threads.

SC: Relevance?

DR: But you have yet to address the fact they couldn't have been faked

SC: They could have been faked and it has been addressed. This is why I suggested you go through the thread.

DR: How did he get the hieroglyphs to follow around blocks set in place. Did he move 10 ton stones because if he did im really impressed.

SC: Again, this is not the impossible task orthodox thinking has always assumed. It has been addressed and is why I suggested that you read the thread thoroughly (including links). It’s not that impressive a task when you realise how easy it can be done. All it requires is a little thinking outside the ‘sarcophagus’.

DR: So your accusations of fraud mean nothing even if he stole money from his grandma and beat up little kids doesnt mean he faked the cartouche.

SC: It is not an accusation—he bought votes, he committed electoral fraud. It's a fact. Does that mean he perpetrated fraud in the GP? We simply do not know but what we do know is that Howard-Vyse was a man capable of perpetrating fraud to get what he wanted; he was a man quite prepared and willing to break the law. I have shown here (and elsewhere) how he could have perpetrated the fraud and done so without virtually any knowledge of AE writing. I have shown how it is possible to place glyphs in the tight gaps between the granite blocks where no brush could be used. (Just to be clear here—it was Dennis Payne who first demonstrated this). Howard-Vyse had the means and the opportunity. Again, this is not to say he actually perpetrated a fraud. But given that allegations have materialised from an eye-witness of fraud having taken place and given that at least one report of the recent stolen paint claims it was tested and was only centuries old then I think, to put the issue beyond doubt, that the most reasonable course of action now is to have the paint officially tested and dated. I do not think that an unreasonable position and failure to do so by the Egyptian authorities will only result in this question festering for years, decades to come. Mstower, in his post here, asks:

MS: Where are his [Creghton’s] calls for Allen to be vindicated by proper scientific analysis of the original logbook entry?

SC: If it would assist then I am all for proper scientific analysis of this logbook to be done. Absolutely 100%. The question is, is mstower prepared to have Howard-Vyse vindicated by proper scientific analysis of the original hieroglyphs in these chambers of the GP? Surely the latter here is the crux of the issue and thus the more pertinent question.

DR: Howard Carter is accused of stealing artifacts from his find due to all the artifacts that were sold to museums. Does that mean his discovery is invalid because he was a thief?

SC: Strawman. Are we to believe that Howard Carter faked King’s Tut’s mummy, his gold mask and all the other artefacts found in his tomb? Really?

DR: See how straw man arguments work? They prove nothing and cloud the issue.

SC: I think it is far easier to fake a hieroglyph with a pot of red ochre paint than it is to fake a mummy and its gold mask, don’t you?

DR: So how do you explain the Hieroglyphs continuing around blocks? If you say some where faked then how could they.

SC: See above. With a little lateral thinking, it can be done. Over and above which, all of the Khufu cartouches are in open, accessible places in the chambers. For these reasons this is why I believe Hancock has since changed his position from his earlier retraction. When new evidence presents itself, positions change to take account of the new evidence. And just to be clear also—Hancock is not saying Howard-Vyse did forge these markings. He, like me, sees how it could have been done, he sees evidence of an eye-witness claiming it was done, he sees the dubious nature of Howard-Vyse’s past fraudulent activity and he knows of the claim that the paint was tested and dated to only centuries old. It all adds up to one big question mark over the authenticity of these markings. They need to be properly tested in order to finally settle the issue. Is that too much to ask of orthodoxy?

DR: Since they all show the same deposits if some where faked they would look different. It would be easy to tell the difrence from marks made thousands of years a go and only a hundred.Unless you are trying to convince us he could time travel.

SC: Have you seen them all? Red ochre paint (moghre) was still in use in Egypt in 1837. Over and above which, Walter Allen’s account of his great grandfather’s time with Howard-Vyse tells us this:

”Faint marks were repainted, some were new.”

SC: This implies, of course, that the chambers did indeed contain some genuine ancient markings. But which are ancient and which are recent? We need to do the tests and that is all I argue.

Regards,

SC