The following is an address to current and past members of this message board, and indeed any lurkers who have sought to engage an interest in the topics presented herein, specifically in regards to the forgery claim invented by Zecharia Sitchin in his work 'Stairway to Heaven'.
It is through melancholic duress I am compelled to provide a summary of the overwhelming credulity and unnecessary bickering which naturally arise and continue to evolve around the issue. The items I discuss below are by no means complete, nor alone in relation to the topic. It is not my intent to cover the entire field. I could easily leave this function by suggesting you conscientiously consider and absorb the following links, however, as circumstance has provided us, there are distinct issues appearing on this site requiring address not seen in them:
[jcolavito.tripod.com]
[sitchiniswrong.com]
I should press readers to conduct their own further online research, in essence meant to reveal a multitude of discourse explaining in easy-to-read manner the errors of Sitchin, but more pointedly, his errors in relation to the 'Vyse forgery'.
-------------------------
Jon Elisson is John Snape
After much ado and elongated discussion, it can be summarily concluded Jon Elisson is indeed John Snape, the 'expert' cited in Scott Creighton's book 'The Great Pyramid Hoax'. This contention of identity was unnecessarily drawn out by the individual himself for simply not acknowledging with fervent accountability, "It is I." (If by some means of trillions-to-one chance they share the exact same traits but are not the same person, and I am shown otherwise, I will edit this post immediately.) I doubt it, so I consider the matter closed.
The 'Expert'
Since Scott Creighton has unequivocally chosen to represent M. Elisson/Snape as an 'expert' on matters relating to the structure and detail of a specific cartouche of 'Khufu', we, as future (potential) purchasers of his book are entitled to check on the veracity of the 'expert' claim. M. Elisson/Snape has openly supplied his credentials, to which we offer our thanks for his humble release thereof. (He holds a Masters of Fine Art from the University of Portsmouth, and I personally congratulate him on this achievement.) But does this c.v. qualify him as an 'expert' among (that is, 'above and beyond') anyone else who can determine the direction of a brush stroke through their own experiences in painting? I would say most certainly not. Arguably, then, it does not matter who gives an opinion on the painter's discretions, rather that it has been given, as M. Elisson/Snape has so stated - an assertion supported by Philip Femano. I agree. It matters not, and in accepting so tells us it does not require an expert of any kind to formulate an educated opinion, rather, limited expertise would do well to confirm the direction of brush strokes. It is too bad this is a smokescreen argument, as the brush stroke direction from where the implement began its touch of the surface to where it was lifted away has absolutely no bearing on determining if the cartouche and characters are forged or not. A style/direction of brush stroke cannot be dated, nor can it be compared to a set of examples (relative or not) including, no less, standard parameters within which to guide any claim whatsoever of what author they belong to.
Sadly, the brush strokes are not alone in the context of the 'expert' review of the cartouche and characters. There are others, but lets start with this one: The viscous nature of paint itself is open to review. Once again, this does not require an expert to determine what a drip is, nor if any exist. In a very strange manner of compartmentalizing a section of the cartouche where M. Elisson/Snape perceives running paint, he fails to consider the most obvious of all: Every and any non-expert can see there are no paint runs on the openly exposed parts of the cartouche nor its characters, let alone the plethora of marks throughout the relieving chambers of the KC. Said expert focuses on a dull photograph section where his only hope of finding evidence of paint runs might exist. In other words, since he cannot demonstrate runs elsewhere, he takes an extraordinary and desperate leap to an area on the cartouche with such ambiguity as to maintain the 'if' factor of his observations that it is lost in the depths of credulity. It seems his hope to verify beyond doubt paint runs exist is driven by the anxiety of not coming to grips with the fact runs are not visible anywhere else. Focusing on an area where it is impossible to determine (less so through photography) the viability of drips can only serve to maintain the illusion of the claim, which in and of itself remains an antipodal phantom in the realms of evidentiary proclamations. It is no less fair to categorize these 'drips of paint' as pareideola.
Then there is the 'expert' opinion of the cursive direction of the scripted characters in the cartouche. That is, whether they were written from the left or right. First, this form of investigation lies in the discipline of graphology, not 'fine arts'. This alone removes Elisson/Snape from being the go-to expert as he has no expertise in this area. (Should I be in error on this portion of his credentialed experience, I await his honourable disclosure in due course. I will gladly accept this correction.) Nevertheless, secondly, and most importantly trumping the former classification of applicable expertise, the direction the characters were written in cannot be dated by the virtue of either attribute (left or right), nor can such a revelation determine if it was an original scribe of the mid 3rd Millennium BCE or a forger's hand under any date or circumstance extant from the supposed time frame of construction.
Next is the cursive styling of the characters (not the cartouche itself, as this has no cursive styling) where it once again falls under the academic category of graphology, relieving Elisson/Snape of his ability to qualify as an expert, forthwith. It is additionally imperative to point out that such cursive style cannot date nor confirm whose hand it was that created the markings.
Moving on from the inherent errors in the aforementioned points of investigation, there are the images themselves - employed as they were from the internet or digital transfer. Digital photography (still or video) carries natural drawbacks because of higher pixilation when expanded, loss of true colour representation, and is subject to invasive distortions when transferred or viewed from or through any certain media. I remind readers no in-person study of the cartouche and characters in question has been undertaken by those defined as 'experts', thus relying solely on photography prone to distortion, large or small. Now, this is not to say we should discount the findings merely because of image resolution (we can because the claim is utterly inconclusive, but), instead we ought take into account the investigative context (i.e. brush stroke, cursive direction, cursive style) and how impertinent the need is to 'see' drips where there are none. In any event, the visibility of drips is forced upon the reader by mere inclusion of the 'expert' clause. As a point of interest, M. Elisson/Snape has decreed his expertise in photography, so it is with confusion I ponder why such experience does not inhibit his investigation when it comes to photographs. Surely he is aware of the drawbacks? Why is his expertise in photography dismissed by his own volition, while a feigned 'expert'-level is heralded elsewhere? Why indeed.
So let us return to Scott Creighton's employment of 'expert' terminology. All authors the world over and in all disciplines make use of expert testimony; it is done so as an aid for stronger support of any given hypothesis/claim. None of us can fault M. Creighton for such an appendage. However, we can most certainly find fault in how it is applied in this specific instance. In the very basic of terms, when someone of expert status is cited, a reader's perception is automatically steered toward giving greater credence to the idea put forward, and by extension, anyone of lesser (or no) stature can serve to take away. The very virtue of utilizing an expert as support allows for a predominance of acceptability. Perhaps the following example will suffice:
It is easy to see which of the above piques the intuitive nature of the reader more toward accepting a claim. In the case of M. Creighton, inserting the 'expert' adjective guides his readers into thinking the claim has merit by virtue of the adjective alone. A reader is much more likely to take the word(s) of M. Elisson/Snape as correct merely because he is seen as an 'expert', which undermines a cognitive review of the claim itself. It is a misdirection; a misrepresentation of its use. I find this very disingenuous of M. Creighton. QED.
Moving on, let's review the need for an expert to begin with. At some point, even M. Elisson/Snape stated the content of the findings is what is important, not who provided them. For the most part, this is true. (The conditional is that a relevant expert gives more weight, but does not outright prove a claim.) The conclusions made by M. Elisson/Snape can be extrapolated by anyone with limited experience, much less papered. The unfortunate part for him is that his conclusions are pointless (brush stroke, cursive direction, cursive style) and conflagrated (online photography as an attempt to find something.)
I conclude at this interim the 'expert' clause is really neither here nor there because the conclusions reached are simply wrong, or worse, fabricated as badly as Sitchin's renderings of Sumerian texts.
----------------------
With the above cozily tucked into the ear of your thinking caps, one may then appreciate how the whole matter in itself is a micro-tangent effort to seek alternate evidence when other avenues fail one after the other. Never mind that Vyse had no motive (but lax accusations of his character try to contextualize him as a charlatan); that all glyphs in all chambers would also have to be forged (where, in part, individuals with a severe deficiency in hieroglyphics think 'Khnum-Khufu' and 'Khufu' are not the same person, while extensive, explicit, corroborative evidence shows they are); Vyse wouldn't know what he was 'copying'; glyphs run behind the masonry in such fashion they cannot be put there by a brush or instrument of any kind (in unison with the eyewitness testimony being outright ignored); etc etc. Enough, I say.
If we were to accept a forgery, what is the natural consequence? The AE's didn't build the pyramids? Next question is, who did? Well Sitchin thinks it was aliens. Are the likes of Jon Elisson / John Snape, Philip Femano, Audrey Mulertt and Sam Petry (whom M. Creighton thanks for their kind contributions to his book) alien-theory supporters? Or are they unaware of what a non-AE construction would even entail? It seems that by the very association they willingly create between a Vyse forgery, Zecharia Sitchin and themselves, their consistent focus on topics born in the contorted and false writings of the latter author pitch them into a message board who's owner is determinately opposed to them. In layman's terms, why not find a Sitchin MB and ply your theories and mannerisms there instead? The incessant pounding of this message board for years on end with a specifically long-destroyed theory serves only to frustrate current users who are genuinely seeking answers, to upset and throw off brand new innocents who've only just read Graham's 'Mysteries of the Gods, and to provoke unnecessary and puerile confrontation with (hopefully?) intrepid contributors.
--------------------
Before I go, I would also like to address concerns about certain levels of perceived involvement. People like myself (Martin Stower, eyeofhorus, Merrill, Thanos5150, among others, sorry if I missed anyone or misplaced the association with my person) actually provide a public service in reviewing and providing guidance for theories such as these. Imagine a world where anyone could say anything and everyone believed it without question. There is a greater ethereal Dragon lurking among our discourses, and it is he who undermines the fruitful and forward achievements we weave into the mysteries we face. As long as there are Dragons, there will be Knights to slay them.
The Axiom
With no further fanfare, I will conclude this brief summation by offering a guide for those inspired by our common interests in ancient Egypt and beyond:
"Raise your eyes to the heavens - bathe them in the sunshine of knowing the truth, while you revel in the rain of your errors. Keep both in sanctuary."
Kindest Regards,
R. Avry Wilson
It is through melancholic duress I am compelled to provide a summary of the overwhelming credulity and unnecessary bickering which naturally arise and continue to evolve around the issue. The items I discuss below are by no means complete, nor alone in relation to the topic. It is not my intent to cover the entire field. I could easily leave this function by suggesting you conscientiously consider and absorb the following links, however, as circumstance has provided us, there are distinct issues appearing on this site requiring address not seen in them:
[jcolavito.tripod.com]
[sitchiniswrong.com]
I should press readers to conduct their own further online research, in essence meant to reveal a multitude of discourse explaining in easy-to-read manner the errors of Sitchin, but more pointedly, his errors in relation to the 'Vyse forgery'.
-------------------------
Jon Elisson is John Snape
After much ado and elongated discussion, it can be summarily concluded Jon Elisson is indeed John Snape, the 'expert' cited in Scott Creighton's book 'The Great Pyramid Hoax'. This contention of identity was unnecessarily drawn out by the individual himself for simply not acknowledging with fervent accountability, "It is I." (If by some means of trillions-to-one chance they share the exact same traits but are not the same person, and I am shown otherwise, I will edit this post immediately.) I doubt it, so I consider the matter closed.
The 'Expert'
Since Scott Creighton has unequivocally chosen to represent M. Elisson/Snape as an 'expert' on matters relating to the structure and detail of a specific cartouche of 'Khufu', we, as future (potential) purchasers of his book are entitled to check on the veracity of the 'expert' claim. M. Elisson/Snape has openly supplied his credentials, to which we offer our thanks for his humble release thereof. (He holds a Masters of Fine Art from the University of Portsmouth, and I personally congratulate him on this achievement.) But does this c.v. qualify him as an 'expert' among (that is, 'above and beyond') anyone else who can determine the direction of a brush stroke through their own experiences in painting? I would say most certainly not. Arguably, then, it does not matter who gives an opinion on the painter's discretions, rather that it has been given, as M. Elisson/Snape has so stated - an assertion supported by Philip Femano. I agree. It matters not, and in accepting so tells us it does not require an expert of any kind to formulate an educated opinion, rather, limited expertise would do well to confirm the direction of brush strokes. It is too bad this is a smokescreen argument, as the brush stroke direction from where the implement began its touch of the surface to where it was lifted away has absolutely no bearing on determining if the cartouche and characters are forged or not. A style/direction of brush stroke cannot be dated, nor can it be compared to a set of examples (relative or not) including, no less, standard parameters within which to guide any claim whatsoever of what author they belong to.
Sadly, the brush strokes are not alone in the context of the 'expert' review of the cartouche and characters. There are others, but lets start with this one: The viscous nature of paint itself is open to review. Once again, this does not require an expert to determine what a drip is, nor if any exist. In a very strange manner of compartmentalizing a section of the cartouche where M. Elisson/Snape perceives running paint, he fails to consider the most obvious of all: Every and any non-expert can see there are no paint runs on the openly exposed parts of the cartouche nor its characters, let alone the plethora of marks throughout the relieving chambers of the KC. Said expert focuses on a dull photograph section where his only hope of finding evidence of paint runs might exist. In other words, since he cannot demonstrate runs elsewhere, he takes an extraordinary and desperate leap to an area on the cartouche with such ambiguity as to maintain the 'if' factor of his observations that it is lost in the depths of credulity. It seems his hope to verify beyond doubt paint runs exist is driven by the anxiety of not coming to grips with the fact runs are not visible anywhere else. Focusing on an area where it is impossible to determine (less so through photography) the viability of drips can only serve to maintain the illusion of the claim, which in and of itself remains an antipodal phantom in the realms of evidentiary proclamations. It is no less fair to categorize these 'drips of paint' as pareideola.
Then there is the 'expert' opinion of the cursive direction of the scripted characters in the cartouche. That is, whether they were written from the left or right. First, this form of investigation lies in the discipline of graphology, not 'fine arts'. This alone removes Elisson/Snape from being the go-to expert as he has no expertise in this area. (Should I be in error on this portion of his credentialed experience, I await his honourable disclosure in due course. I will gladly accept this correction.) Nevertheless, secondly, and most importantly trumping the former classification of applicable expertise, the direction the characters were written in cannot be dated by the virtue of either attribute (left or right), nor can such a revelation determine if it was an original scribe of the mid 3rd Millennium BCE or a forger's hand under any date or circumstance extant from the supposed time frame of construction.
Next is the cursive styling of the characters (not the cartouche itself, as this has no cursive styling) where it once again falls under the academic category of graphology, relieving Elisson/Snape of his ability to qualify as an expert, forthwith. It is additionally imperative to point out that such cursive style cannot date nor confirm whose hand it was that created the markings.
Moving on from the inherent errors in the aforementioned points of investigation, there are the images themselves - employed as they were from the internet or digital transfer. Digital photography (still or video) carries natural drawbacks because of higher pixilation when expanded, loss of true colour representation, and is subject to invasive distortions when transferred or viewed from or through any certain media. I remind readers no in-person study of the cartouche and characters in question has been undertaken by those defined as 'experts', thus relying solely on photography prone to distortion, large or small. Now, this is not to say we should discount the findings merely because of image resolution (we can because the claim is utterly inconclusive, but), instead we ought take into account the investigative context (i.e. brush stroke, cursive direction, cursive style) and how impertinent the need is to 'see' drips where there are none. In any event, the visibility of drips is forced upon the reader by mere inclusion of the 'expert' clause. As a point of interest, M. Elisson/Snape has decreed his expertise in photography, so it is with confusion I ponder why such experience does not inhibit his investigation when it comes to photographs. Surely he is aware of the drawbacks? Why is his expertise in photography dismissed by his own volition, while a feigned 'expert'-level is heralded elsewhere? Why indeed.
So let us return to Scott Creighton's employment of 'expert' terminology. All authors the world over and in all disciplines make use of expert testimony; it is done so as an aid for stronger support of any given hypothesis/claim. None of us can fault M. Creighton for such an appendage. However, we can most certainly find fault in how it is applied in this specific instance. In the very basic of terms, when someone of expert status is cited, a reader's perception is automatically steered toward giving greater credence to the idea put forward, and by extension, anyone of lesser (or no) stature can serve to take away. The very virtue of utilizing an expert as support allows for a predominance of acceptability. Perhaps the following example will suffice:
Quote
"A guy - some guy down by the river - gives his support to my idea on such-and-such a procedure regarding brain surgery. According to him, rusty clamps should not cause any problems."
vs.
"Dr Baker A. Wornville PhD, Chief Anesthesiologist at Boston College Hospital (30 years), renowned for his advances in neurological inception under the Surgeon General of the USA, and successful innovator of cranial implant retention surgery warns of the dangers of not properly cleaning and preparing surgical tools. Rust can and will kill you through blood poisoning, among other factors."
It is easy to see which of the above piques the intuitive nature of the reader more toward accepting a claim. In the case of M. Creighton, inserting the 'expert' adjective guides his readers into thinking the claim has merit by virtue of the adjective alone. A reader is much more likely to take the word(s) of M. Elisson/Snape as correct merely because he is seen as an 'expert', which undermines a cognitive review of the claim itself. It is a misdirection; a misrepresentation of its use. I find this very disingenuous of M. Creighton. QED.
Moving on, let's review the need for an expert to begin with. At some point, even M. Elisson/Snape stated the content of the findings is what is important, not who provided them. For the most part, this is true. (The conditional is that a relevant expert gives more weight, but does not outright prove a claim.) The conclusions made by M. Elisson/Snape can be extrapolated by anyone with limited experience, much less papered. The unfortunate part for him is that his conclusions are pointless (brush stroke, cursive direction, cursive style) and conflagrated (online photography as an attempt to find something.)
I conclude at this interim the 'expert' clause is really neither here nor there because the conclusions reached are simply wrong, or worse, fabricated as badly as Sitchin's renderings of Sumerian texts.
----------------------
With the above cozily tucked into the ear of your thinking caps, one may then appreciate how the whole matter in itself is a micro-tangent effort to seek alternate evidence when other avenues fail one after the other. Never mind that Vyse had no motive (but lax accusations of his character try to contextualize him as a charlatan); that all glyphs in all chambers would also have to be forged (where, in part, individuals with a severe deficiency in hieroglyphics think 'Khnum-Khufu' and 'Khufu' are not the same person, while extensive, explicit, corroborative evidence shows they are); Vyse wouldn't know what he was 'copying'; glyphs run behind the masonry in such fashion they cannot be put there by a brush or instrument of any kind (in unison with the eyewitness testimony being outright ignored); etc etc. Enough, I say.
If we were to accept a forgery, what is the natural consequence? The AE's didn't build the pyramids? Next question is, who did? Well Sitchin thinks it was aliens. Are the likes of Jon Elisson / John Snape, Philip Femano, Audrey Mulertt and Sam Petry (whom M. Creighton thanks for their kind contributions to his book) alien-theory supporters? Or are they unaware of what a non-AE construction would even entail? It seems that by the very association they willingly create between a Vyse forgery, Zecharia Sitchin and themselves, their consistent focus on topics born in the contorted and false writings of the latter author pitch them into a message board who's owner is determinately opposed to them. In layman's terms, why not find a Sitchin MB and ply your theories and mannerisms there instead? The incessant pounding of this message board for years on end with a specifically long-destroyed theory serves only to frustrate current users who are genuinely seeking answers, to upset and throw off brand new innocents who've only just read Graham's 'Mysteries of the Gods, and to provoke unnecessary and puerile confrontation with (hopefully?) intrepid contributors.
--------------------
Before I go, I would also like to address concerns about certain levels of perceived involvement. People like myself (Martin Stower, eyeofhorus, Merrill, Thanos5150, among others, sorry if I missed anyone or misplaced the association with my person) actually provide a public service in reviewing and providing guidance for theories such as these. Imagine a world where anyone could say anything and everyone believed it without question. There is a greater ethereal Dragon lurking among our discourses, and it is he who undermines the fruitful and forward achievements we weave into the mysteries we face. As long as there are Dragons, there will be Knights to slay them.
The Axiom
With no further fanfare, I will conclude this brief summation by offering a guide for those inspired by our common interests in ancient Egypt and beyond:
"Raise your eyes to the heavens - bathe them in the sunshine of knowing the truth, while you revel in the rain of your errors. Keep both in sanctuary."
Kindest Regards,
R. Avry Wilson