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

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Humphries Brewer was a real person. Here are some photographs of his monument in Fall Brook Cemetery:

pictures.insanart.com...

I saw some of the photographer’s earlier pictures of this cemetery and I suggested she look for the monuments of Humphries Brewer and his brother-in-law Gustavus Orton.

Here, courtesy of Pennsylvania State University, is the obituary of Humphries Brewer, as it appeared in The Tioga County Agitator, a fortnight after he died (image, pdf).

Walter M. Allen was a real person. I spoke to him per telephone in 1997. I also had (have) one letter from him.

Both he and his wife (Thelma) Lois were in poor health when I spoke to them. For this reason and others, I decided not to prolong the contact. Lois died in 1999 and Walter followed in 2000. Only then did Sitchin make his partial disclosure of the material Allen sent him.

I also have copies of other material written by Allen and sent to a contact in this country. (Much of his genealogical research was entirely bona fide.)

So far, so good.

Walter M. Allen was not a trained historian (or genealogist). He was not infallible. He was prone to overinterpret his material.

Key in this context:

Before reading Sitchin, Allen already had a story of Humphries Brewer joining Vyse at Giza and later being invited by Lepsius to join his expedition. Notably absent from this story was any mention at all of the forgery idea.

Then he read a summary of Sitchin’s claims, in a column (“The Unexplained”) by one George Cunningham-Tee.

After that, the forgery was part of the story.

On Lepsius: Allen’s claim was that Humphries Brewer was a former student of Lepsius. He claimed (a) that Humphries had studied at the University of Berlin and (b) that Lepsius was his “former professor”.

On consulting the (copious) biographical material on Lepsius, we find that this doesn’t fly on grounds of timing alone. He wasn’t a professor until 1842: his appointment as “extraordinary professor” gave him the status needed to lead an expedition under (Prussian) royal patronage. It was not until 1849 that Lepsius became a regular professor (the kind that had students) at the University of Berlin. In that year, Humphries Brewer left England for America.

Neither is there any record of Lepsius having visited or written to Humphries Brewer in 1838, when Lepsius was in England (and Wales). He did find time to view the Hill facsimiles in the British Museum and came within a whisker of having the first publication on the topic.

And again, the Lepsius expedition convened in England in 1842, before setting out for Egypt (from Southampton). Lepsius really did invite an Englishman to join him: an Englishman of Italian descent, with prior experience in Egypt, Joseph Bonomi. Another, James William Wild, more or less invited himself. Where was Humphries Brewer in all of this? There is no record. Why, when Lepsius invited him (by letter? face to face?), did he not let on about the forgery?

We begin to see. however, how Humphries Brewer’s children may have misunderstood their father’s stories of events of the day as stories about his own exploits. (The eldest was 19 when her father died.)

It has been established in some detail that elements of the family tradition are exaggerated or distorted. See e.g. here for the claims about a bridge over the Danube:

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

And then we have the supposed chain of transmission:

Humphries Brewer → William Marchant Brewer → Helen Pattengill (née Brewer) → Walter’s mother → Walter M. Allen

All of this an oral tradition, with no documentary corroboration at any stage, other than the bare claim in the obituary that Humphries Brewer had visited Egypt and the Holy Land.

Enough for now, I think.

M.

reply to post by Harte

Hello Harte,

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: The claim was made by Walter Allen himself, written into a logbook (see below) when he was researching his family history in the 1950s. He was a very keen amateur genealogist.

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: It may. It may not. Only by conducting proper scientific analysis will we have a chance to determine which glyphs are genuine and which (if any) have been faked. I, for one, do not see why we should accept the word of a known fraudster.

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.

SC: Well the evidence of the Turin Canon, the Palermo Stone and even the writings of Manetho all tell us that the AE civilisation is tens of thousands of years older than Egyptology claims. Egyptology dismisses the claims of the AEs as a ‘mythical time’. It may be convenient for Egyptology to do that but I personally think there is much more to what the AEs are actually telling us in this regard.

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?

SC: Certainly I think there is much truth cloaked in the veil of mythology and allegory. The Myth of Isis and Osiris is a case in point—in my view (as you may already know) this is a myth that tells of the rebirth of Egypt (Horus) through the agency of the ‘Body of Osiris’ being the (dismembered) pyramids themselves built as recovery vaults. (But we need not go through this lest we totally derail the thread). The AEs understood what a year was, they even understood what a ‘Sothic Year’ was (1,461 years). They understood very long periods of time so I think, on that basis, we should not be so quick to dismiss what they tell us themselves.

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?

SC: As I mentioned earlier, the new evidence I have uncovered at Giza leads me to conclude that the monuments there (as well as the other early, giant pyramids) were built ca.19,000 years ago. Does this mean Surid/Sophis/Khufu existed then? Probably. As for the 4th dynasty King list—between dynasties 1-4 there are around 150 missing kings from that period alone. That’s a lot of missing history. Over and above which, if you look at the Abydos King List the name there of the second king of the 4th Dynasty is Rauf, not Khufu. This is what my ‘Who was Khufu’ thread was about. There is some compelling evidence that strongly suggests that the plain disc in the Abydos List is the plain disc of the god ‘Ra’ and not the plain ‘Kh’ disc. (Another long thread that could easily derail us here).

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.

SC: As I said earlier, either the chronology is flawed, or C14 dating is flawed (and there are many who agree with Hawass about that). As I also said, there is considerable evidence at Giza that is strongly indicative of reparation works having been made to the pyramids and other monuments. Certainly I can envisage the kings of the 4th dynasty (and perhaps even some earlier once) attempting reparation works. We also have written AE testimony (again dismissed by Egyptology) of such reparation works having been made.

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.

SC: Well I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this. Hawass’s condemnation of the C14 technique was unequivocal:

“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: That seems emphatic to me and not a mere bad day at the office.

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: He may have been. He may not have been. The point though is that the relevant information was available at the time. I would think that, given that Howard-Vyse worked closely with the Italian Caviglia for about two years, that it would be likely that Howard-Vyse would have known of Rosellini’s work since Caviglia also knew of and liaised with Rosellini, a fellow countryman. I think there is a very good chance that Howard-Vyse would have been made aware of Rosellini’s book.

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: If they were written by someone onto the blocks of Campbell’s Chamber, why is it so impossible that they could not have been written somewhere else outside the pyramid? Don’t get me wrong here—I would love this Khufy inscription to be genuine. I just do not think that, given all the circumstances around Howard-Vyse’s discovery of them, that it can be taken for granted. I think they should be properly tested.

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?

SC: The point is that the AEs DID understand their writing and that is what Howard-Vyse (possibly) copied (from elsewhere). Howard-Vyse is copying what the AEs knew, not what Samuel Birch didn’t know.

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?

SC: Not at all. (See above).

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?

SC: As I said previously, according to Humphries Brewer, some of the markings were new and some were repainted. We just do not know which. But also some of these markings are between tight blocks where no forger could get a brush. But with a little ingenuity, a brush is not actually needed to paint marks into these ‘impossible’ places. And the end result would be a very convincing fraud. So, if Howard-Vyse and his team sought to make a fraud convincing by placing markings in these tight gaps then I would not put it beyond them to place some of the markings ‘upside-down’. Creates a very convincing illusion of authenticity.

But, as I keep saying, we will not know he veracity of these markings until they are properly tested. That is all that I ask that should be done before we accept them as genuine.

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?

SC: I have never claimed he was copying from Wilkinson’s Materia Hieroglyphica. Howard-Vyse simply recognises the Khufu cartouche elsewhere outside the pyramid and copies whatever text he finds on that external source. He doesn’t need to actually know what the text he finds actually says—so long as it contains the Khufu cartouche (which he recognises), he simply copies whatever is written in whatever script into the Relieving Chambers.

But let me say once again—I would be happy that these markings were scientifically proven to be genuine. It would vindicate Howard-Vyse. What I won’t do, however, is blindly accept the word of Howard-Vyse, a known fraudster.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


HI Blackmarketeer,

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.'

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.

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.

SC: I think we are talking at slight crossed purposes here. The “letter” you refer to was actually only an entry made by Walter Allen in his personal logbook. This entry into his logbook, as stated above, was based on a number of family letters and oral traditions that had been passed down to him (Walter Allen) and was made as he was researching his family history in the 1950s. I have little reason to see why anyone should doubt this. Indeed, Allen’s passion for researching his family history even made it into the Pittsburg Gazzette (see below):



As you can see in the article above, dated to March 1977 (long before Allen ever made any contact with Sitchin), his great grandfather, Humphries Brewer is mentioned.

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.

SC: And yet, in spite of your aspersions, many of the details within the family recollection were very accurate with regards to names, places and events although, as would be expected with such oral accounts, the names of parties involved were slightly mis-spelt.

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.

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.

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.

SC: Alas, we do not have the actual letters to examine so all we can reasonably comment on is what we do in fact have which is the words of Walter Allen written into his logbook.

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"

SC: Sitchin may have been the person to make Walter Allen’s family history known to the world by publishing it in his book but that doesn’t make Sitchin responsible for the content of Allen’s ‘testimony’.

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).

SC: As I stated above, we can only use the evidence that has been presented. Without seeing Allen’s family letters it is impossible for anyone to assess these particular claims. What we DO have though, is a logbook entry written by Allen which claims his great grandfather witnessed Howard-Vyse’s team perpetrating fraud at Giza.

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.

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.

BM: Oh, and neither Sitchin nor Walter Allen could ever actually produce any of these documents Allen supposedly had.

SC: Indeed. Which is why I keep saying that all we can reasonably use is the material we DO have which is Walter Allen’s logbook entry.

BM: Someone took the time to analyze Sitchin's claims, blow by blow, here:
"Revelation of the Pyramids": Sitchin, or not Sitchin ?

SC: I’m not interested in what Sitchin has to say or any of his theories. But I think it is important that he made known and brought attention to the family history of Walter Allen via Allen’s logbook entry. Sitchin deserves credit for that at least.

BM: The whole Walter Allen affair just doesn't add up. It offers nothing in the way of proof of a forgery.

SC: No one is claiming Allen’s logbook account amounts to “proof”. But it most certainly casts doubt upon the account of Howard-Vyse. And with the recent claim that the stolen paint sample from Campbell’s Chamber has in fact been dated to being only centuries old, one can only conclude that mainstream claims as to the provenance of these markings has become untenable and that proper, official, documented scientific analysis has to be undertaken in order to determine, once and for all, the veracity of the markings in these chambers.

Continued....

BM: The only other thing you offer in your post is a character assassination of Howard-Vyse.

SC: Alas, Howard-Vyse managed that all by himself with his fraudulent political activities. That his character and reputation is sullied is his doing, not mine.

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton
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.

Oh. So you’re God, are you, Creighton? You have a God’s-eye-view of this?

You’re able with God’s omnipotence to see what Humphries Brewer saw, and hear what Humphries Brewer said, and compare all this with what Walter Allen wrote, and tell us that it is good?

Because in no other way could you warrant the claims you are making here and the loaded, question-begging terms you are using here.

Such as “eye-witness account”, used three times in the course of one short paragraph. This is of course the usual Creighton technique of mantra-like repetition.

Again, the supposed chain of transmission of this material is as follows:

Humphries Brewer → William Marchant Brewer → Helen Pattengill (née Brewer) → Walter’s mother → Walter M. Allen

Here’s something else which William Marchant Brewer said about his father:

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. . . .

This from a profile of William Marchant Brewer for which the man himself is the most likely source.

Such documentary snapshots as we have (and there are some) of the family tradition as it developed give us reason to know that the transmission was very far from perfect. It’s a typical tale of the family hero which grew in the telling.

We have, however, no documents with earlier versions of the forgery story in Allen’s notes. For that we’re entirely reliant on the quality of the transmission. Calling what we have “testimony” shows poor understanding of what that word means:

en.wikipedia.org...

Creighton (as usual) tries to fill the evidential gap with guff.

And again, as I’ve already explained, nowhere in the material directly attributable to Walter M. Allen did he claim that Humphries Brewer wrote down this story in letters. Allen’s story has Humphries telling his father all about his travels in person, face to face, on his return to Wiltshire. The letter idea is Sitchin’s.

Allen was not the family historian. He never had Humphries Brewer’s surviving correspondence. This went to the eldest son, William Marchant Brewer and then (as far as we have evidence) to his children. Some of it has been used by a historian of the coal industry. That’s the kind of thing the letters were about!

Creighton (as usual) is spamming this board with guff which failed elsewhere.

M.

Scott Creighton
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.

LOL!

M.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


You are making a great deal out of the allegation Howard-Vyse was a "proven fraudster." He had a long career in the army, as an MP, and as the High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire, yet never suffered any accusations of being a fraud in those positions.

The one and only accusation comes from Philip Staples, who was the loser to Vyse and John Wharton, esq, in the 1807 election of Beverley. Staples filed a petition which reads like sour grapes, that his two opponents wined and dined constituents to gain their votes.

Here is the full text in parliamentary proceedings, from "Journals of the House of Commons, Volume 62" (link )


The text of the journal is loaded with such petitions from losing parties in elections. Throughout that year and indeed that era, there are countless such petitions, all seemingly coming from losing parties in elections. Sounds like standard practice on both winner and losers parts. However, this was a petition by the loser in that particular election, not a formal charge, and no resolution was made from it, in fact Vyse would hold this office until the borough of Beverley was dissolved and then hold another office in Honiton, before being elected High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire. Blame the political system in place at the time if you must, but Vyse doesn't appear to have done anything untoward beyond the usual 'beer hall' brand of politics.

I'd say the argument Vyse was a "proven fraudster" was an extremely weak one, and an accusation pushed largely by Sitchin to undermine the character of Vyse so his claims of forgery would stick.

Additional background info on Vyse's career in parliament;
The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1790-1820, ed. R. Thorne, 1986

This hardly supports the claim Vyse was in any way a proven fraudster.

PS: reading in the history of Beverley for that year, it appears Staples ran on a platform of "No Popery" that was extremely unpopular.

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."

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Hello BlackMarketeer,

And there, in a nutshell, is your (well Sitchin's, really) allegation that Vyse was a "fraudster."

SC: This particular charge has nothing to do with Sitchin--as far as I am aware, he made no mention of it in any of his books.

As I stated earlier, Howard-Vyse bought votes in his election and that was illegal in elections in the UK at that time. We even know the precise number of votes Howard-Vyse bought:

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

SC: Howard-Vyse obtained 1010 votes in the Beverley election of 1807. This means Howard-Vyse fraudulently and illegally secured, through bribery, a sum of 932 votes. As I said, the man was a fraud and resorted to fraudulent means to get what he wanted in this election.

The man was a fraud. Period.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


As you note, the complaint against Vyse was thrown out. The way the evidence against him subsequently came out is interesting. Decades later, in 1869, the Borough of Beverley as such was under investigation for electoral corruption:

[Minutes of Evidence taken before the Beverley Bribery Commission]

[Joseph Hind, examined by Commissioner Barstow on 13 September 1869]

[p. 387]

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.

[p. 389]

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.

[p. 393]

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.

Hind quoted this old book in mitigation of the behaviour of the voters, to show that the “custom” was long-established.

Lest anyone make the fatuous suggestion that serpent-in-the-garden Vyse introduced this “custom”, the Victoria County History already cited shows that electoral bribery went back much further than 1807, with the treating of voters “a well established custom by 1722”.

Creighton also knows (having been told it) that in this same election of 1807, even William Wilberforce, the anti-slavery campaigner, standing for the County of Yorkshire, resorted with reluctance to paying voters, just as Vyse (or his agents) did (and Wilberforce, unlike Vyse, was a seasoned political operator). Neither should we forget that candidates tended to put their campaigns in the hands of local agents and then turn a blind eye.

Anyone with a serious historical awareness of the period knows that elections were like this. It says a lot about the system and very, very little about personal moralities.

Creighton has refused such awareness. Why? Because this is all he’s got on Vyse.

After the Bribery Commission reported its results, the Borough of Beverley was disenfranchised.

M.

reply to post by mstower


Exactly, it's interesting to note one of the members on the ballot wasn't even aware he was running for election. Staples petition notwithstanding, there had been no further accusations of improprieties against Vyse over a long career, until Sitchin felt he had to undo the "smoking gun" proof Vyse had uncovered in the GP.

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.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Hello Blackmarketeer,

BM: Staples petition notwithstanding, there had been no further accusations of improprieties against Vyse over a long career…

SC: Actually, there was a further accusation against Howard-Vyse which he notes in his own diary but fails to elaborate upon. With the purchase of 932 votes in the Beverley election, Howard-Vyse committed electoral fraud. This was illegal and Howard-Vyse would most assuredly have known it was illegal. He was a fraudster, plain and simple. He may well have done some good things in his life but that doesn’t alter the fact that he committed fraud. As such, how can he be trusted with something as important as the discovery he allegedly claims to have made? If you were completely honest with yourself I think you would come to the conclusion that most people would come to—his account of his discoveries must be questionable. Regardless of how much you may desire to defend Howard-Vyse, there is simply no way around this. He committed fraud ergo he is a fraudster. As such any claims he subsequently made in later life must be treated with caution. I do not consider this an unreasonable position.

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.

SC: Graham has actually (relatively recently) updated his position with regards to the inscriptions in these chambers:

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)

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton
SC: Have you read Howard-Vyse’s journal in the British Museum?

Have you? We know the answer to that, don’t we?

If you’d so much as seen it, you’d get the location right.

If you’d so much as seen it, you wouldn’t talk so casually about reading so unreadable a scrawl.

Scott Creighton
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.

In answer to what Creighton implies but fails to make explicit, insofar as it can be made out at all, there is nothing in the manuscript which resembles a reference to Humphries Brewer.

Scott Creighton
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 . . .

Certainly I would, to answer the charge and get my retaliation in first—as Vyse did, at length, in the case of Caviglia (devoting a whole appendix to the topic). The truth is that Vyse was not at all reticent about mentioning people he’d dismissed, been at odds with etc. Supposing that he was in this case only, to explain away the absence of any reference to Humphries Brewer, is mere special pleading.

Scott Creighton
. . . although, intriguingly, Howard-Vyse mentions two masons that were helping him but only mentions one of them by name. Why not the other?

He mentions no such masons. He mentions two quarrymen, one named Daoud and both clearly understood to be native Egyptians. Why not name the other? Daoud was more of a character: “he was an excellent workman, extremely zealous and active, and possessed of great strength, although he was said to live entirely on spirits and Hhasheésh (an intoxicating preparation of hemp)”.

Scott Creighton
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.

“If someone has accused you of fraudulent practices why would you even mention this in your published book?”

But Vyse did, didn’t he, Creighton? As you have here exemplified.

What Vyse actually wrote (Operations, Volume I, p. 225):

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.

Does that look like failing to elaborate on the nature of the charge?

You should know, you quoted it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(Creighton has made this “failure to elaborate” accusation before and been picked up on it.)

We may note in passing Creighton’s trick of turning accusations into instant guilty verdicts. Counting his various errors and absurdities is left as an exercise for the reader.

M.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


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.

Here is some interesting information Martin Stower turned up regarding elections in England of that era;

I invite discussants to consider this Wikipedia piece on the famous anti-slavery campaigner, William Wilberforce:

en.wikipedia.org...

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:

books.google.co.uk...

Note that Kingston upon Hull and Beverley were adjacent constituencies. It would seem that similar customs prevailed.

(from Graham Hancock's forum)

The point being, as noted in a followup post:

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.

An anti-slavery abolitionist and deeply religious man was also accused of 'buying votes,' - "as was the custom of the time." Does this make Wilberforce a "proven fraudster?" No. Neither does it make Vyse a proven fraudster.

You have a biased opinion on Vyse and Egyptology in general because you have a theory to push, but instead of allowing the data to dictate the theory, you are using your theory to dictate what data is acceptable to you and what data is not.

Correction to the above, it was Robert M. Schoch who observed the mineral deposits layering over the quarry marks:

”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.

source

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Hello Blackmarketeer,

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.

SC: As you know, I have only ever stated that Howard-Vyse was a ‘proven fraudster’ – which is perfectly correct. I have not claimed that Howard-Vyse was a convicted fraudster (although he should have been). Mr Staples’ petition certainly did not succeed because, unfortunately for him, the evidence of Howard-Vyse’s fraudulent activity was not available to him at the time. Hardly a surprise given that he would require to convince those who received a bribe from Howard-Vyse to admit the fact which could have resulted in those individuals being imprisoned themselves for accepting a bribe. Hardly an inviting incentive for coming forward I would have thought.

But the evidence of Howard-Vyse’s fraud did eventually come to light although much too late for the unfortunate Mr Staples to benefit from it. So, with the benefit of historical hindsight, we can safely assert that the case against Howard-Vyse of electoral fraud has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Howard-Vyse committed electoral fraud and, as such, Mr Staples' petition to parliament should have succeeded. Indeed, even the indefatigable Mr Stower conceded this point:

”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.

One again, I think you somewhat miss the point here which is that both Howard-Vyse and Wilberforce were very driven, ambitious men—they both did what it took, risking even possible imprisonment, to achieve their goal. These men were prepared to do what it took (including breaking the law and risking imprisonment) to achieve their ends. These were men who, unlike the vast majority of the population, were quite prepared and willing to step outside the law to achieve their ends. This behaviour demonstrates an element of their character and that is the point.

Now, that Wilberforce, having broken the law then went on to do good only demonstrates that, in his particular case, the leopard can change its spots. There is clear and unequivocal evidence of Wilberforce’s selfless acts. Thus in his case (and with the benefit of history) we can say that the end justified the means; the leopard came good so to speak.

But that is simply not (yet) the case for Howard-Vyse. Clearly he was also a character who was quite prepared and willing to step outside the law in pursuit of his personal ambitions. But here's the difference with Wilberforce--there is no evidence that this particular leopard changed his spots. We do not know if Howard-Vyse continued to do rotten deeds; we do not know if his 'discovery' of the markings in the Relieving Chambers of the Great Pyramid was his finest achievement or his greatest fraud. We have only his word.

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.

That is why I continue to insist that Howard-Vyse can only be vindicated (or otherwise) with proper scientific analysis of the markings in these chambers, particularly the Khufu inscriptions. Only upon receipt of such unequivocal proof that these markings are genuine will we be in a position to say that, in the case of Howard-Vyse, the end justified the means. But not until then. We simply do not know if this particular leopard changed its spots.

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."

SC: “..centuries or millennia...” (my emphasis).

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton
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.

In his earlier life? What are you talking about? Wilberforce was 47 at the time of the 1807 election and a seasoned political operator.

Oh, and by the way, “looks like” and “proven” are not the same thing. “Looks like” means a prima facie case, not a proven case.

And in case it escaped your attention, we were talking under this heading about something a little more recent: the actions of Erdmann, and Görlitz, and Höfer.

M.

Robert Schoch
. . . 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.

A perfect example of how Creighton dodges the plain sense of a passage in pursuit of making it say the opposite of what it says.

The contrastive marker “however” shows quite clearly that the latter part is understood as being inconsistent with the former (the scenario just outlined of forgery by Vyse or his workmen).

And someone who twists things like this is asking us to trust his presentation of the case.

M.

Scott Creighton
He committed fraud ergo he is a fraudster.

Here in a nutshell is Creighton’s crude dogmatism and childish moral essentialism.

M.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Hello 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.

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

Hello 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.

Regards,

SC

edit on 8/3/2014 by Scott Creighton because: Fix tag.

. . . and here, to prove my point, is Creighton asking us to rely, sight unseen, on his interpretation of whatever it was provoked this risible fantasy.

Vyse was certainly active in England in 1842, but the coverage isn’t comprehensive, so . . . (fill in your fantasy here).

Vyse’s presence in Egypt on a return visit also escaped the attention of anyone who left a published account of travel in (or through) Egypt during this period—including those who had contact with Hill and Raven, referred explicitly to Vyse’s discoveries, used Vyse’s tents (which Hill and Raven maintained for the benefit of tourists) and in general could be expected to show an interest.

As for Lepsius, as you’ve already been told, he said nothing at all about meeting Vyse in Egypt. Neither was any such meeting mentioned in the contemporary reports of the expedition which appeared in The Athenaeum.

What happened in real life was that Lepsius referred to Vyse and Perring in these terms:

. . . 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; . . .

So go on, Creighton, give it your best shot.

M.