Great Pyramid Void Enigma - Excerpt #3 From My New Book

Hi ATS,

As promised, please find below the final Excerpt from my new book, The Great Pyramid Void Enigma (released a week ago in the US & Canada by Bear & Co). If you haven't already done so, you can read Excerpt #1 here and Excerpt #2 here.

Book promo video (2.5 min):



Excerpt #3
Appendix 2: Mounting Evidence: New Confirmation of Vyse’s Deceit

The evidence presented in my previous book, The Great Pyramid Hoax, concerned itself primarily with the painted quarry marks from the lowest of the Vyse Chambers, Wellington’s Chamber, and the uppermost, Campbell’s Chamber. We will now consider a whole raft of new evidence that has only recently come to light from the other two Vyse Chambers (Nelson’s and Lady Arbuthnot’s) and that further indicates a hoax having been perpetrated within the Vyse Chambers of the Great Pyramid in 1837.

The Wheels Loosen

Intriguingly, Vyse’s fraudulent activity at Giza was apparently witnessed by one of Vyse’s workers, a man named Humphries Brewer. Brewer wrote letters back to his family in England about his travels through Egypt and the Holy Land and, it seems, about his time working with Vyse at Giza. Brewer eventually emigrated to the United States, and the letters he had written to his parents were apparently passed down the family line (presumably after the death of Brewer’s parents). While researching his family history with his mother and some elderly aunts in 1954, Walter Allen of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Brewer’s great grandson), came to learn of his great grandfather’s time with Vyse at Giza and recorded the details of the family discussion in his ham radio logbook at the time. In these notes, Allen recounts the following story of his great grandfather’s time with Vyse at Giza:

“He joined a Col. Visse exploring Gizeh pyramids. Rechecked dimensions 2 pyramids. Had dispute with Raven and Hill about painted marks in pyramid. Faint marks were repainted, some were new. Did not find Tomb . . . had words with a Mr. Hill and Visse when he left.”

Even though Allen’s logbook page bears elements that would have been very difficult for a hoaxer to have known (thus imbuing the account’s authenticity with a high degree of confidence), typically, critics of the account point out that there is no mention in any of Vyse’s published volumes of Brewer ever having been in the colonel’s employ, implying that he had never actually worked with Vyse at Giza at all and thus could never have witnessed any fraudulent activity there. Without Brewer’s original letters to corroborate his great grandson’s later logbook account, the critics insist that this evidence from Allen is, at best, hearsay and, at worst, itself fraudulent. In their view, with no corroboration of the story, Allen’s account becomes inadmissible to the debate.

But, of course, Brewer’s original letters (which appear to have been lost sometime after 1954) are not the only place we should be looking for corroborating evidence of Allen’s story. If such an incident really had occurred at Giza in 1837, then it is highly unlikely indeed that Vyse would have made any mention of it in his published work, for to have done so, if he could not disprove the allegation, would have fatally undermined his word on the authenticity of the Khufu cartouches he claimed to have discovered within the Great Pyramid, something the colonel would, naturally, have wished to avoid. However, while Vyse, understandably, may have entirely expunged such an unpleasant event and the antagonists involved in it from his published volumes, he may not have been so concerned in doing so with his private account, an account that was, after all, for his eyes only. So is there anything in Vyse’s private notes that might lend support to Allen’s logbook account?

Vyse’s private field notes (his daily diary of events at Giza) consist of around six hundred foolscap pages covering the period from December 1835 to August 1837. The pages most likely to mention the Humphries Brewer incident would, logically, be found in the period when the colonel was blasting open the four Vyse Chambers, from March 30, 1837, to May 27, 1837—a period of around eight weeks. However, given that Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber contains more quarry marks than all of the other chambers combined, it is reasonable to further suppose that if any fraudulent activity had been occurring in the Great Pyramid during this eight-week period, then it is more likely to have been witnessed shortly after the opening of this particular chamber (between the dates of May 6 to May 10, 1837). The logic here is simple: more forged chamber marks require more preparation time, need more paint, more chamber visits, and generally more journeying back and forth to this chamber by the forgers—all of which add up to an increased probability of any fraudulent activity being spotted and witnessed by a third party between those particular dates. After checking Vyse’s private notes, we find that these five days amounted to just three foolscap pages—a considerably less arduous task to check, especially given the very difficult nature of the colonel’s handwriting.

So what, if anything, is present within these three pages of Vyse’s private notes between these specific dates of May 6 to May 10, 1837, that might point to fraudulent activity within Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber? Is there any corroborating evidence in Vyse’s private account from these critical days at Giza—these three pages—that might lend support to Allen’s story about his great grandfather calling foul on forgery within the Great Pyramid and being subsequently dismissed by Vyse?

Quite remarkably, it would appear that such an account is indeed present in Vyse’s private journal during this very time frame. However, as is typical when transcribing the colonel’s incredibly difficult handwriting, it comes with something of an unexpected twist to the account as relayed to us by Allen…

Excerpts from The Great Pyramid Void Enigma © Scott Creighton. All rights reserved. (Inner Traditions – Bear & Co., July 2021)

A related video (22 min) you may find of interest:



Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

This material has already been the subject of some discussion.

See the comments at the end here (scroll down).

See also here.

What is holding people back not just do a GPR and excavate a small hole, big enough for a drone with a camera to go in there. I would expect that would be something that could be done pretty fast ? Why write a book about a mystery when it is ready to be solved ?

a reply to: Scott Creighton Have you ever heard of the Ancient Artifact Preservation society? I am a member of that, they have a conference once a year....pretty interesting stuff, you probably know some of the people who are speakers at the conference.

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

This material has already been the subject of some discussion.

See the comments at the end here (scroll down).

See also here.

"Discussion" by an individual who, some years ago, attempted to subvert the truth around this particular issue for his own selfish ends. An individual who tried to corrupt our history. That is all that really needs to be said about this individual's idea of a "discussion".

SC

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

This material has already been the subject of some discussion.

See the comments at the end here (scroll down).

See also here.

They seem more like monologues than discussions...

Doctor Hawass is a tough cookie

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

This material has already been the subject of some discussion.

See the comments at the end here (scroll down).

See also here.

They seem more like monologues than discussions...

Why didn't the author reply to the points raised?

does your book book offer significant evidence for fraud by Vyse other than those letters or the journal?
and no Sitchin at all .
It is clear that if someone has the criminal energy, will and access to the whole pyramid that this individual will place that evidence in other places, places that leave no doubt.
It would be just plain stupid to miss that opportunities.
subterranean chamber, QC, KC, sarcophagus..anywhere.

as you have written a book about that, my first attempt would be a professional graphological examination and opinion of the journal and a comparison between the alleged fraudal self-painted cartouche.
that would quickly reveal the truth, you just cant fake personally painted strokes.
Then a geological examination on the encrustations layers that lie on top of the ancient paint marks and cartouches.

'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." - Dr R. Schoch, Forbidden Science, Kenyon, D., Bear & Co., 2008, p.46 '

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

This material has already been the subject of some discussion.

See the comments at the end here (scroll down).

See also here.

"Discussion" by an individual who, some years ago, attempted to subvert the truth around this particular issue for his own selfish ends. An individual who tried to corrupt our history. That is all that really needs to be said about this individual's idea of a "discussion".

Which fails entirely to answer any of the criticisms advanced.

I therefore take it that they are conceded.

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

This material has already been the subject of some discussion.

See the comments at the end here (scroll down).

See also here.

there are actually some good points there..

originally posted by: anti72

...

my first attempt would be a professional graphological examination and opinion of the journal and a comparison between the alleged fraudal self-painted cartouche.

...

Preliminary efforts to obtain copies for such comparisons were made by third parties some years ago.

Regrettably, the difficulties in the end proved just too great.

originally posted by: anti72
does your book book offer significant evidence for fraud by Vyse other than those letters or the journal?
and no Sitchin at all .

Yes, it does "offer significant evidence for fraud by Vyse" (as does my first book on this issue - link below). Not sure why you're asking about Sitchin - much of the evidence he presented to charge Vyse with fraud has been called into question and rightly so. He made a complete mess of it which is why authors such as Hancock, Bauval and others backed away from Sitchin's 'evidence'. The biggest bulk of the evidence I present was never even seen or considered by Sitchin.

It is clear that if someone has the criminal energy, will and access to the whole pyramid that this individual will place that evidence in other places, places that leave no doubt.
It would be just plain stupid to miss that opportunities.
subterranean chamber, QC, KC, sarcophagus..anywhere.

All those places you mention have been accessible to us for (at least) 1,000 years and the interiors reasonably well documented and known long before Vyse ever arrived on the scene. No painted AE hieratic markings had ever been previously documented in any of those places you mention. Had Vyse placed marks in those well-documented places then he'd have been called out instantly as a fraud since, as stated, no such marks had ever previously been seen and documented by anyone in those places. So it would make no sense whatsoever for Vyse to have painted marks in those previously documented places.

To make it difficult to question such a fraud then one of the pre-requisites would be to find somewhere that no one ever had access to or had set eyes upon. And Vyse got lucky when his former business partner, Giovanni Caviglia, suspected just such a place in the GP and told Vyse about it. Then, wouldn't you know it, Vyse suddenly had an irreconcilable grievance with Caviglia and had the well-respected pyramid explorer kicked off his team and permanently banned from the Giza site, leaving Vyse free to discover these hitherto hidden chambers all for himself - the ideal places to paint fraudulent marks. (As you would expect, Vyse contests Caviglia's version of the events around the discovery of the hidden chambers).

as you have written a book about that, my first attempt would be a professional graphological examination and opinion of the journal and a comparison between the alleged fraudal self-painted cartouche.
that would quickly reveal the truth, you just cant fake personally painted strokes.

Well from the photos we have of Mr Hill's drawings of the marks (and those of Vyse himself), they are very similar in style to those (few) photographs we have of the actual painted marks in the chambers. If they could do this well enough then they could have just as easily copied these marks from elsewhere into the pyramid. However, in doing all of this they made many clear mistakes and gaffs - as you might expect a fraudster to do.

Since none of the orthodox folks who have studied the material presented in the video below seem willing to comment upon it, perhaps you might give it a go? (This is just one of the many items of evidence I have uncovered pointing to a fraud having been perpetrated by Vyse and his team, evidence I might add that Sitchin has never seen or considered. Mainstream folks just throw the name 'Sitchin' at my research in order to try and taint it by association. They don't seem to understand that most folks are smart enough to make their own minds up. You can read all of the evidence in my previous book, The Great Pyramid Hoax and in the Appendices of my new book.

Then a geological examination on the encrustations layers that lie on top of the ancient paint marks and cartouches.

This has already been explained to you in an earlier post.

SC

originally posted by: Spacespider
What is holding people back not just do a GPR and excavate a small hole, big enough for a drone with a camera to go in there. I would expect that would be something that could be done pretty fast ? Why write a book about a mystery when it is ready to be solved ?

Seriously? You just dont go drilling into the pyramid its not a simple process. Have you ever been in the pyramid its cramped it smells and even with AC its hot. You really don't have a lot of room to set up a drilling rig and if you do you have to make sure it won't affect anything else. And it's not easy to drill that far into the pyramid they would have to shut down tourism which right now they desperately need.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72
does your book book offer significant evidence for fraud by Vyse other than those letters or the journal?
and no Sitchin at all .

Yes, it does "offer significant evidence for fraud by Vyse" (as does my first book on this issue -

The Vyse material in Void is confined to two appendices.

Does the chapter “on this issue” in The Secret Chamber of Osiris make it your “first book on this issue?”

... Not sure why you're asking about Sitchin -

You appear to be trying to make something incriminating of Vye’s dispute with Caviglia, relying heavily on Sitchin, but without acknowledgement.

originally posted by: Hooke
Why didn't the author reply to the points raised?

Well, I don't know. Since I'm not the author, you're asking the wrong person.

Maybe he didn't want to engage in a silly online bickering match, or maybe he's already dealt with that person before and didn't feel a need to spend the energy on them again. Maybe the author doesn't find the points raised to be worthy of discussion. Maybe the points have been rebutted before and the author is tired of doing so. Maybe the responses to the points are in the book that he's selling, so he'd rather people read it than just give out all of the answers online.

Should I go on with the conjecture, or do you agree that it's a pointless exercise for both of us?

a reply to: anti72

I agree they are unlikely to be fake some of them are even impossible to reproduce because they are in cracks or go around a block mortared in place, I think a lot of the fake stuff was started because they have never really seen them in person.

What i think he did was copy each symbol then he sat down and looked for a match. He couldn't read hieroglyphics so all he did was scan through a catalog. When he found what he believed were matches he put that in his journal. You can tell because photos do not match his journal entries. This is simply a case of he had no training in archeology and it shows in a lot of his work.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Then a geological examination on the encrustations layers that lie on top of the ancient paint marks and cartouches.

This has already been explained to you in an earlier post, where you give the quote as:

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." - Dr R. Schoch, Forbidden Science, Kenyon, D., Bear & Co., 2008, p.46.

What’s wrong with that post was explained to you in 2014, where Schoch's quote was given as follows:

. . . 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.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Hooke
Why didn't the author reply to the points raised?

Well, I don't know. Since I'm not the author, you're asking the wrong person.

Maybe he didn't want to engage in a silly online bickering match,

This isn't about bickering: it's about addressing, and answering, questions concerning evidence and interpretation.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

or maybe he's already dealt with that person before and didn't feel a need to spend the energy on them again.

Which is just how his critics often feel.

Maybe he has no answers. I looked for this in your list, but could not find it.

a reply to: Hooke

hi,
no, actually you are quoting what I wrote, so Scott may not answer this.

I think i trust the observation of the trained eye of Robert Schoch there. He may also have good fotos of that, who knows.
But he was several times up there as he gave photographic evidence going back to 2006 in the case of Görlitz/Erdmann/ Bauvall.
I also have gotten original fotos of Houdin who photographed the beautiful ancient workers markings.( and also modern original architectural drawings of the KC and the original entrance structure in french).


I personally dont give a sh*t on the whole 'Vyse fraud'.

interesting article of Bauval about the interpretation of Scott though (scroll down to bottom).
myblog.robertbauval.co.uk....


hook, but as we are on it, do you have any infos about the pencil marks on the original cartouche?
somebody did some alignment measurements there.