Court resumed earlier today in the case of Creighton v Vyse with independant researcher, Jason Colavito expected to take the stand.
All eyes and ears were directed towards the defence attorney who began questioning the witness with regard to the alleged forgery of the Khufu cartouche in Campbell's Chamber by Col. Vyse in 1837.
"Mr Colavito, what is the quality of Creighton’s research?”
“What is Creighton's point?”
“What are Creighton’s claims?”
“How accurate is his assessment?”
“How would you sum up Creighton’s book?”
"In other words, it seems as though the book is a dud."
Court is adjourned.
All eyes and ears were directed towards the defence attorney who began questioning the witness with regard to the alleged forgery of the Khufu cartouche in Campbell's Chamber by Col. Vyse in 1837.
"Mr Colavito, what is the quality of Creighton’s research?”
Quote
“It will surprise no one that Creighton includes no modern academic work on the relieving chambers at all in his bibliography, or modern work in Egyptology in general from this century but does feature several postings from the Graham Hancock website message board alongside a list of fringe books.”
“What is Creighton's point?”
Quote
“Across his earlier and current books Creighton seems to argue an impossible point, that we cannot trust the claims of the Egyptians themselves but can trust those of the Arab historians writing thousands of years later.”
“What are Creighton’s claims?”
Quote
“He claims that an analysis of photographs of the paint suggest that the signs were written left-to-right and while the blocks were upright, in contravention of Egyptological consensus, a consensus he doesn’t seem to be able to cite or discuss with sources outside other fringe books’ summaries. Creighton, who likes to cite the Graham Hancock website forum, discussed these claims on the board in 2014 and received extensive criticism from Martin Stower, which made no impression on him.”
“How accurate is his assessment?”
Quote
The evidence for forgery is unimpressive, comprised primarily of hypotheticals.
“How would you sum up Creighton’s book?”
Quote
“In sum, Creighton’s forgery claim is based on an unprovable assumption for which there is no evidence, and which would require almost a greater discovery than the painted cartouches in the pyramid.
Overall, the book is downright uninteresting. It has nothing new to say to readers of his earlier book.
Creighton’s argument asks us to share his own ignorance about the political, social, cultural, and archaeological contexts in which Vyse operated, and it expects readers to come to the book already accepting the notion that there is no other reason to believe the pyramids to be of dynastic Egyptian origin except for the quarry marks found within them."
"In other words, it seems as though the book is a dud."
Court is adjourned.