Howard Vyse - A Practice to Deceive

A number of you may be familiar with my previous book, The Great Pyramid Hoax which presented a number of anomalies from various sources pointing towards a fraud having been perpetrated by Howard Vyse (and his assistants, Raven and Hill, in 1837). Since that book was published, a whole stream of new evidence has been uncovered that supports that earlier contention and which is presented in full in the appendices of my new book, The Great Pyramid Void Enigma. The extract from the new book below presents just one of the many new anomalies that has been uncovered since HOAX was published in 2017.

I hope at least some of you will find it of interest.

A Practice to Deceive

From both of Vyse’s accounts (private and published), it is plainly clear that Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber had been breached on May 6 (fig. 1).



Figure 1. The many painted inscriptions Vyse had made during his time at Giza. To reproduce this information for his 1840 book would have required Vyse to have carefully noted each of these inscriptions while at Giza in 1837 (he could hardly commit all of this to memory). However, in the “Inscriptions” entry in Vyse’s published account, he wrongly reports the date within the inscription in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber as May 6, 1837. (Image: Vyse, Operations, Vol II, p.145)

However, the chamber’s dedication inscription to Lady Arbuthnot, which was painted onto the chamber wall by Hill, contradicts this May 6 date and actually gives the chamber’s opening date as having occurred three days later, on May 9 (fig. 2).



Figure 2. The dedication inscription in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber. The actual date in the chamber inscription is given as May 9, 1837, contradicting Vyse’s private and published accounts. (Photo courtesy of Patrick Chapuis)

To be clear, this date of May 9 in the chamber's inscription does not reflect the date when Hill actually painted the inscription itself, but, just like the dedication inscriptions in the other chambers, it states the chamber’s opening date. We can be certain of this since it was confirmed by Hill [actually by Vyse] in no less than six of ...[Hill's] facsimile sheets from this chamber, in which he [Vyse] writes on each sheet, “opened on the 9th of May 1837.” Furthermore, these facsimile sheets were duly signed by a number of witnesses, including Sir Robert Arbuthnot, Raven, Hill, Brettel and even Vyse himself, all testifying to this May 9 opening date (fig. 3).


Fig.3. The attestation text from one of Hill's facsimile drawings. The text is in Vyse's handwriting. (Transcribed by S. Creighton)

Here then we have a glaring contradiction as to when this chamber was actually opened: both of Vyse’s journals tell us May 6 (as does Perring’s account), but Hill has written May 9 on the chamber wall and [Vyse confirms this date] also on no less than six of his verified facsimile drawings. Something is clearly afoot here.

So what’s going on? It stands to reason that Vyse, to write the “Inscriptions” section of his book (fig. 1), must have had a copy of all the inscriptions he made at Giza, including that in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber with its May 9 date. So why does the colonel contradict this date by stating in his later published account that the dedication inscription reads “Lady Arbuthnot’s chamber, May 6, 1837,” when evidently it does not say this and he would surely have seen (in his copy of this inscription) that it doesn't say this? Furthermore, why did Vyse, upon seeing this seemingly contradictory May 9 date painted onto the chamber wall and [confirmed by Vyse himself on] Hill’s facsimile sheets, not instruct Hill to correct it at the time? If he [Vyse] felt it was important enough to “correct” in his later book, then why not also the original chamber inscription? Indeed, why should such a glaring contradiction even exist at all between these various documented sources? Why did Perring (in 1839) and Vyse (in 1840) claim an opening date of May 6 while the chamber’s dedication inscription and Hill’s facsimile drawings state May 9 as the opening date? Why such a blatant contradiction?

What we may actually be observing here is but yet another calculated attempt by Vyse to manipulate events at Giza, just as he had previously conflated and fudged the dates of Nelson’s Chamber. In this instance, however, Vyse was not (at least initially) attempting to backfill the events to the earlier date of May 6 as being when the chamber was actually opened but, rather, was attempting to shift the opening date of the chamber (and the claimed discovery of the painted marks therein) forward in time by three days to May 9, and for a very specific reason.

The colonel, naturally, would have wanted it to be known that the discovery of the painted marks in this chamber occurred on the very same day the chamber was opened because, during any initial exploration, he would have realized that such an obvious oversight by two men of so many painted marks would surely have raised some eyebrows and probably some awkward questions. As such, the three day time lag between the chamber’s actual opening and the discovery of the painted marks needed to be compressed (read: vanish), and Vyse’s solution was to shift the date of the chamber’s actual opening [May 6], moving it a few days forward in order to give himself time to have the quarry marks painted into the chamber by his Egyptian worker (with Raven and Hill likely complicit in this nefarious activity). And, naturally, as part of his plan, Vyse would have instructed Hill to place the dedication inscription with the date of May 9, 1837, on the chamber wall to show to the world that this was the date the chamber was opened (as opposed to the true date of May 6) and that this May 9 date was also the date that a “great many quarry-marks” therein were also discovered. Awkward time gap gone.

To be absolutely clear here, the wording of the dedication inscription placed in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber would have been wholly the responsibility of Vyse—not Hill. This chamber was Vyse’s discovery. The naming of each chamber was entirely his prerogative. And the text of the dedication inscription would also have been his prerogative. It is simply inconceivable that the colonel would have delegated the wording of the chamber’s dedication inscription to Hill. Vyse would have totally called the shots on this, deciding exactly what text, including the date, was to be placed on the chamber wall.

Continued in next post. . .

...Cont'd from previous.

Consider then that Vyse’s published account, in quoting the inscription in this chamber, claims it reads May 6, 1837. Vyse presents this May 6 date to us without any indication whatsoever that he had actually altered it (from May 9). And neither does he offer any eplanation as to why he made this alteration. This is surely odd since Vyse, throughout his book, routinely notes and comments upon other instances where he believes documentary mistakes were made elsewhere by various other people, including the misreporting of dates. We are thus permitted to wonder, if this had been a mistake made by Hill and that Vyse was merely correcting the date here after the fact (as some have suggested), why did he not likewise offer any commentary in his published work as to having made this change and why he felt it was necessary?

As noted, Vyse would almost certainly have had a note of the inscription text from this chamber (including its May 9 date) while writing his book. Given this, he would have been wholly aware that in changing the May 9 date to May 6, he was giving a false report on material evidence. Surely the correct and transparent procedure here would have been for the colonel to have quoted the actual date given in the inscription (May 9) and to have added a footnote in his text with his new date, explaining that Hill had made a mistake that required correcting (had that actually been the case). This approach would have been consistent with his dealing of mistakes he observed in other source material cited in his book. That Vyse didn't take this approach in this instance strongly suggests that he couldn't. Why? Because to have done so would have meant placing unwarranted criticism upon Hill for a mistake he never made and who had merely been following the colonel's orders. The expedient option then was to simply say nothing of the reasons for the change.

And so, what we have here is nothing but a complete fabrication by Vyse, an outright lie. This, right here, is clear proof of Vyse knowingly and surreptitiously misreporting actual evidence, of manipulating facts in his published account for his own ends. This, right here, is clear evidence of an attempt to conceal his botched deception. (It would have looked highly peculiar indeed were Vyse to have had a May 6 diary entry in his book stating the chamber was opened on this day with an inscriptions section later in his book declaring May 9 as the date. By falsely reporting May 6 as the date given in this inscription, Vyse was able to avoid placing a contradiction in his published account and avoid also the awkward questions such a contradiction would surely have raised.) The May 9 date can be observed in this chamber's inscription to this very day, but it is an opening date which Vyse, for reasons that will soon become clear, had to abandon in his book and revert to the true opening date of May 6.

Critics will undoubtedly respond to this date anomaly by suggesting that Vyse, notwithstanding the above, was merely correcting an original mistake made in this inscription by Hill who had somehow got muddled and painted the wrong date onto the chamber wall. This possibility is highly unlikely for a number of reasons.

1. As previously noted, Vyse has never claimed that Hill made a mistake with the date in this inscription (contrary to his routinely alerting his readers to documentary mistakes made by other writers in other source material throughout his book, including misreported dates).

2. Since Hill was in Cairo two days before the chamber was opened, he could not have known when the opening had actually occurred. As such, Hill could not have been relying on his own memory of the chamber's opening to recall and paint the desired date into the inscription. Someone must have informed Hill of the desired date (almost certainly Vyse).

3. This was an important piece of text that Hill was placing on this wall—the chamber’s dedication inscription! Is it realistic to believe that Hill could get something so important so wrong?

4. As noted, if Hill had made a genuine mistake with this date, why wasn't it corrected at the time? If this “mistake” was important enough for Vyse to later “correct” for his book, then why didn't he have the original inscription corrected?

5. If Hill had been using stencils for his inscriptions (not unlikely), then the very fact that a “9,” when inverted, can become a “6” would have made it all the more likely that he would have been extra careful with this particular number, ensuring that he had the stencil the desired way up before painting the number.

6. Is it really likely that Hill and Vyse somehow managed between them to come up with the wrong chamber opening date when that event had occurred only a few days earlier? The date this inscription was likely painted onto this wall by Hill coincidentally occurred on May 9. As such, in painting the chamber's opening date (that day’s date) onto the wall, Hill would surely have known that this chamber had not been opened that same day, but rather three days earlier (when he had been in Cairo), and yet, for some unfathomable reason, he ignored that glaring chronological disparity and continued to paint “May 9th” onto the wall rather than the earlier true opening date of May 6.

7. [Vyse] specifically wrote May 9 as the chamber's opening date on six of [Hill's] facsimile sheets...

8. Hill, whom Vyse describes as “a very intelligent person,” appears throughout Vyse’s operations at Giza to have been a thoroughly dependable man, having made no mistakes of any kind with the dedication inscriptions in any of the other chambers.

On the balance of probability then, it does seem that Hill painted onto the wall the dedication inscription he would have been instructed by Vyse to paint. There was no mistake, and he painted the inscription exactly as it would have been given to him [by Vyse]. And so, May 9, 1837, was to be the date that Vyse planned to tell the world that Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber was first opened and the date that the painted quarry marks were found on the chamber's walls. Thus, in this planned scenario, there is no problematic time lag that needed explaining between the date the chamber was opened and the date the quarry marks therein were discovered. In this scenario, there would have been no mention whatsoever in the colonel’s future published account of the actual truth (i.e., that the chamber had, in fact, been opened three days earlier on May 6 and that no quarry marks had been found in the chamber on that date). It was not intended that any of this be known, and, had everything gone to plan, the true opening date of this chamber, May 6, would have been entirely expunged from Vyse’s official account.

And so, everything was in place, and the colonel’s plan was nicely coming together. The chamber was now ready for the visit of Sir Robert and Lady Arbuthnot the following day, and, naturally, with the chamber being named in honor of Lady Arbuthnot, it would have been quite likely that these esteemed guests of Vyse would have desired to see inside this chamber. The perfect witnesses.

But the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men, often go awry. Vyse’s carefully crafted deception was about to unravel and the truth of his mendacity exposed in quite spectacular fashion. . .

SC

(NOTE: There is some additional text in the above extract than in the book).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scott posted this same material a few days ago on the Author of the Month board at Graham Hancock’s site.

(Regarding Scott’s subject line: this is a quote from Walter Scott’s Marmion:

O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

In the original context, “practise” is a verb, and not a noun.)

originally posted by: Hooke
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scott posted this same material a few days ago on the Author of the Month board at Graham Hancock’s site.

(Regarding Scott’s subject line: this is a quote from Walter Scott’s Marmion:

O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

In the original context, “practise” is a verb, and not a noun.)

Is there a point to your post? The material is from my new book. I post it where I please.

SC

So your saying he faked the date 3 days ahead so he had time to tamper with things inside the chamber? Or am I reading this wrong? I didn’t read your book I do remember reading your thread “pyramid hoax thread” a long time ago so I’m a bit rusty on all the details there.

On a side note I appreciate your work and dedication to the subject and your time posting here on ats, thank you!

again, like for the other claims about Vyse, why would he not just destroy his ( almost unreadable) private journals if they would carry such 'evidence' of 'fraud'? He certainly would just burn it.

a reply to: anti72

Maybe he didn't plan on the way information could spread today back in 1830's?

originally posted by: Brotherman
So your saying he faked the date 3 days ahead so he had time to tamper with things inside the chamber?

We know from both of Vyse's sources (private journal and published book) and from Perring's book that LA's Chamber was opened on May 6, 1837. There is no mention by Vyse in either account of having discovered any painted marks in this chamber on this day (despite this chamber having more marks than all the others combined and despite the fact that there were two men exploring it on that day and who would have been entirely anticipating such marks as they had supposedly discovered these painted marks upon the walls of the two chambers previously opened by them).

Or am I reading this wrong? I didn’t read your book I do remember reading your thread “pyramid hoax thread” a long time ago so I’m a bit rusty on all the details there.

Yep. Vyse would have wanted to be able to say that the painted marks were 'discovered' on the same day that the chamber was opened, hence why he had Mr Hill paint May 9th 1837 on the wall. May 9th was to be the day Vyse would declare to the world that the chamber had been opened and the marks 'discovered'. Except his plan was partially aborted and he ended up with this unrealistic time gap of 3 days between the chamber being opened and the painted marks being discovered. Not only did he revert to May 6 as the opening date in his published account (possibly because Mr Perring had done so in his own account which was published before Vyse's and Vyse didn't want to contradict Perring lest questions be asked) and so, by reverting to the true opening date, he was compelled to also alter the text of the dedication inscription for his book from reading May 9th (which it does and can be seen as this even today) to May 6th. Had he not misrepresented the date in the inscription then this would have placed a very awkward contradiction in his published account. So, to cover it, he basically lied about that inscription in LA's Chamber.

What a tangled web he weaved.

On a side note I appreciate your work and dedication to the subject and your time posting here on ats, thank you!

Thanks. Appreciated.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Appreciate the clarification, thanks again.



Beers on me bro.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scott posted this same material a few days ago on the Author of the Month board at Graham Hancock’s site.

(Regarding Scott’s subject line: this is a quote from Walter Scott’s Marmion:

O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

In the original context, “practise” is a verb, and not a noun.)

Is there a point to your post? The material is from my new book. I post it where I please.

The point of my post was to ensure that anyone who's interested wouldn't miss out on more discussion of the subject.

originally posted by: anti72
again, like for the other claims about Vyse, why would he not just destroy his ( almost unreadable) private journals if they would carry such 'evidence' of 'fraud'? He certainly would just burn it.

In the section entitled "Burning Truth," Scott writes:

... even if Vyse had planned to destroy his journal, or even just certain pages
of it, he may well have held it over the fire in the parlor of his home at Stoke Poges
but, in the end, just couldn’t bring himself to let go, resolving to do the deed the
following day. Alas, however, one day his tomorrow never came when the colonel
departed this Earth with his private journal remaining fully intact, locked in the
drawer of his writing bureau ...

originally posted by: anti72
again, like for the other claims about Vyse, why would he not just destroy his ( almost unreadable) private journals if they would carry such 'evidence' of 'fraud'? He certainly would just burn it.

He certainly would have had to hold onto it for a number of years in order to write his book and then for some time thereafter should any queries arise. He lived in a different, much less 'connected' time. Maybe he planned to destroy it but just never got around to it - who knows?

The fact of the matter, however, is that it still exists and presents us with a number of anomalies and contradictions to his published account that need to be explained.

The particular issue under discussion, however, does not relate (directly) to his private journal anyway. It relates to the inscription date for LA's Chamber he published in his book that contradicts the opening date for this chamber (written by Vyse) on Hill's drawings of the marks and also the inscription date Vyse presents for LA's Chamber in his published book which he claims reads 'May 6th 1837'. That inscription does not say that and never has said that. This was an attempted cover-up by Vyse.

SC

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scott posted this same material a few days ago on the Author of the Month board at Graham Hancock’s site.

(Regarding Scott’s subject line: this is a quote from Walter Scott’s Marmion:

O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

In the original context, “practise” is a verb, and not a noun.)

Is there a point to your post? The material is from my new book. I post it where I please.

The point of my post was to ensure that anyone who's interested wouldn't miss out on more discussion of the subject.

yes, very interesting to read what the more scholarly guys there have to say about Scotts.. arguments.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72
again, like for the other claims about Vyse, why would he not just destroy his ( almost unreadable) private journals if they would carry such 'evidence' of 'fraud'? He certainly would just burn it.

He certainly would have had to hold onto it for a number of years in order to write his book and then for some time thereafter should any queries arise. He lived in a different, much less 'connected' time. Maybe he planned to destroy it but just never got around to it - who knows?

The fact of the matter, however, is that it still exists and presents us with a number of anomalies and contradictions to his published account that need to be explained.

The particular issue under discussion, however, does not relate (directly) to his private journal anyway. It relates to the inscription date for LA's Chamber he published in his book that contradicts the opening date for this chamber (written by Vyse) on Hill's drawings of the marks and also the inscription date Vyse presents for LA's Chamber in his published book which he claims reads 'May 6th 1837'. That inscription does not say that and never has said that. This was an attempted cover-up by Vyse.

SC

makes no sense. Any written proof is dangerous for a fraudster, every single day .
He certainly would have destroyed it quickly.

btw do you think Sitchins books ( not topic in this thread) actually are a credible source or are you distance yourself from it?

originally posted by: anti72

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72
again, like for the other claims about Vyse, why would he not just destroy his ( almost unreadable) private journals if they would carry such 'evidence' of 'fraud'? He certainly would just burn it.

He certainly would have had to hold onto it for a number of years in order to write his book and then for some time thereafter should any queries arise. He lived in a different, much less 'connected' time. Maybe he planned to destroy it but just never got around to it - who knows?

The fact of the matter, however, is that it still exists and presents us with a number of anomalies and contradictions to his published account that need to be explained.

The particular issue under discussion, however, does not relate (directly) to his private journal anyway. It relates to the inscription date for LA's Chamber he published in his book that contradicts the opening date for this chamber (written by Vyse) on Hill's drawings of the marks and also the inscription date Vyse presents for LA's Chamber in his published book which he claims reads 'May 6th 1837'. That inscription does not say that and never has said that. This was an attempted cover-up by Vyse.

SC

makes no sense. Any written proof is dangerous for a fraudster, every single day .
He certainly would have destroyed it quickly.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, the simple fact remains - Vyse's handwritten journal exists for us to examine and it contradicts his published account in a number of places. That is what you actually have to deal with. Just saying a fraudster would have gotten rid of incriminating evidence simply doesn't cut it as an argument I'm afraid and certainly doesn't remove any of the contradictions we find between these written accounts (however much you might think it does or wish it to be so).

btw do you think Sitchins books ( not topic in this thread) actually are a credible source or are you distance yourself from it?

Not the least bit interested in Sitchin's books or his theories. The vast majority of the evidence (with regards to the Vyse fraud question) that I present in my books Sitchin never even knew existed.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72
again, like for the other claims about Vyse, why would he not just destroy his ( almost unreadable) private journals if they would carry such 'evidence' of 'fraud'? He certainly would just burn it.

...

The particular issue under discussion, however, does not relate (directly) to his private journal anyway. It relates to the inscription date for LA's Chamber he published in his book that contradicts the opening date for this chamber (written by Vyse) on Hill's drawings of the marks and also the inscription date Vyse presents for LA's Chamber in his published book which he claims reads 'May 6th 1837'. That inscription does not say that and never has said that. This was an attempted cover-up by Vyse.

If this was “an attempted cover-up” by Vyse,why didn't Vyse write to Hill and ask him to adjust the inscription?

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72
again, like for the other claims about Vyse, why would he not just destroy his ( almost unreadable) private journals if they would carry such 'evidence' of 'fraud'? He certainly would just burn it.

...

He certainly would have had to hold onto it for a number of years in order to write his book and then for some time thereafter should any queries arise. He lived in a different, much less 'connected' time. Maybe he planned to destroy it but just never got around to it - who knows?

Certainly? In the Preface of Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837, he wrote this (p. xix):

The following narration is chiefly composed from a regular journal of the daily occurrences, as they severally happened; and I have to observe, that it was written in 1838, notwithstanding the great delay, which has taken place in its publication, owing to the number of plates, to my own inexperience, and to other incidental causes, which have also unfortunately made a list of errata necessary; . . .

As you know, the first two volumes of Operations (which cover events up to Vyse’s departure from Egypt) appeared in 1840. Contrary to the impression you give, he published more promptly than some professionals have.

As for queries arising: could you give some examples? Why would Vyse need this manuscript to answer them? According to you, he made it all up. Why not carry on just making it up? Again, according to you, there are serious discrepancies between his private notes and the published version, so he did not (according to you) carefully follow the manuscript in his public statements. Your speculative allegation lacks coherence.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72
again, like for the other claims about Vyse, why would he not just destroy his ( almost unreadable) private journals if they would carry such 'evidence' of 'fraud'? He certainly would just burn it.

...

He certainly would have had to hold onto it for a number of years in order to write his book and then for some time thereafter should any queries arise. He lived in a different, much less 'connected' time. Maybe he planned to destroy it but just never got around to it - who knows?

Certainly? In the Preface of Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837, he wrote this (p. xix):

The following narration is chiefly composed from a regular journal of the daily occurrences, as they severally happened; and I have to observe, that it was written in 1838, notwithstanding the great delay, which has taken place in its publication, owing to the number of plates, to my own inexperience, and to other incidental causes, which have also unfortunately made a list of errata necessary; . . .

As you know, the first two volumes of Operations (which cover events up to Vyse’s departure from Egypt) appeared in 1840. Contrary to the impression you give, he published more promptly than some professionals have.

As for queries arising: could you give some examples? Why would Vyse need this manuscript to answer them? According to you, he made it all up. Why not carry on just making it up? Again, according to you, there are serious discrepancies between his private notes and the published version, so he did not (according to you) carefully follow the manuscript in his public statements. Your speculative allegation lacks coherence.

Hooke/Hermione,

Once again, I see that you are allowing your ATS account to serve as a proxy for your co-author to ask questions of me. (Tell me I am wrong).

This individual has been banned from this forum (and others) and for very good reason. It surely should be apparent to you (Hooke/Hermione) that I do not give any replies to that individual. And none will be given here either.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I've asked whether you have any examples of the sort of queries Vyse might have to answer, queries that would require him to retain and refer to the - potentially incriminating (according to you) - private journal.

I've also asked why, if Vyse just made things up for Operations, he wouldn't then destroy the journal, and continue just making things up.

Can you answer these questions?

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

I've asked whether you have any examples of the sort of queries Vyse might have to answer, queries that would require him to retain and refer to the - potentially incriminating (according to you) - private journal.

I've also asked why, if Vyse just made things up for Operations, he wouldn't then destroy the journal, and continue just making things up.

Can you answer these questions?

You expect everyone to answer all your questions on demand and yet, when I ask you questions, you refuse to answer. Yes, of course I can answer your silly questions, however -

SC: Once again, I see that you are allowing your ATS account to serve as a proxy for your co-author to ask questions of me. (Tell me I am wrong).

So - you didn't tell me my suspicion was wrong. You are - just as I suspected - allowing your co-author to use your ATS account (since he has been banned here) to ask questions of me.

Well Hooke/Hermione - by your own actions you have just added yourself to my ignore list.

Care to invite me back to Hall of Ma'at now?

SC