mstower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also in the article (and repeated as a boxed
> quote) is this: “However, the most damning
> evidence of all comes from Vyse’s own hand, and it
> shows beyond reasonable doubt
> that he did perpetrate a deception within
> the Great Pyramid.”
>
> Really? Creighton has been other than consistent
> in his assertions on this point. The concluding
> paragraph of HOAX is equivocal:
>
> “Genuine or fake—these painted marks within the
> Great Pyramid have become part of our common
> history and heritage. The world deserves to know
> the truth of them.”

What we find in HOAX (pp. 161–2 in print) is this:

Quote

Louise and I looked at each other in stunned silence as the realization and enormity of what we had found gradually sunk in, for before us, on these two pages in Vyse’s private journal, was compelling evidence that the cartouche of Suphis/Khufu must, in fact, have been forged by him—just as a number of researchers and writers over the years had suspected. To say that we were dumbstruck by what we had uncovered would be an understatement; here we had found in the colonel’s own diary, in his own hand, evidence that proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that Vyse had perpetrated the hoax of all history.

I find it hard not to read this as a claim to telepathic communion.

At least we have lost the “damning”: he found that he wanted to call other evidence “damning”, so this is merely “compelling”.

Why so plonking an assertion should be followed by so limp a conclusion I leave as an exercise for the reader. Is Creighton’s evidence—any of it—in the “proving the hoax of all history” class? I don’t think so.

M.