Two dots or not two dots? That is the question…

I have read Scott’s article in the July/August 2014 issue No. 106 of Atlantis Rising.

Scott bases his case on a page from Howard Vyse’s diary, where various cartouches bearing the name “Khufu” are seen. Notwithstanding the rather confusing argument about what Howard Vyse allegedly “intented” to do, Scott’s hypothesis (and it is one) all boils down to TWO DOTS that may or may not be there. Without those two dots, his whole case falls down like a pack of cards.

Let us take a closer and unbiased approach.


1. Here is the part of Vyse’s diary which shows the Cartouches.


2. This is the Cartouche at the bottom of the page


3. This is an enlargement of the Cartouche at to of the page


5.        6.RImg_5834

4. This is a drawing by Scott Creighton which is meant to be a copy of the Cartouche at the top of the page in Vyse’s diary (shown again here)


It is evident to me that Scott clearly omitted to add the dark line that is slashed across the Carouche, and it is clear that he wanted to highlight the TWO DOTS under the snake sign.  But are the TWO DOTS really there? Admittedly there are markings that COULD be TWO DOTS but clearly not as visible as Scott shows them in his own drawing, or wants them to be. And what about the dark line that slashes the cartouche and partially covers the POSSIBLE two dots? What does it mean when someone slashes a drawing this way? Does it not mean, perhaps, that this drawing is wrong” or “ignore this drawing”….? And furthermore does not the little “X” sign on the top right also means “wrong drawing”? And does this not also explain the cartouche at the bottom of the page which is, in fact, the correct reproduction of the ACTUAL cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber?


5. Khufu Cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber


The obvious discrepancy between the original drawing by Howard Vyse and the drawing made by Scott Creighton in the Atlantis Rising article in issue 106, July/August 2014 has already been pointed out by Martin Stower. I tend to agree with him that Scott WANTED to see TWO DOTS when they may in fact not be there at all. For without those precious TWO DOTS, his hypothesis does not work.


6. Top image is by Vyse’s own hands; the bottom image is by Scott Creighton


My own interpretation is that what can be derived from that page in Howard Vyse’s diary is that he was correcting himself of how the Khufu cartouche should be drawn rather than plan a forgery as claimed by Scott. Would not this make more sense than to to imagine that Howard Vyse left such alledged incrimination ‘evidence’ in his diary for posterity?…


Comments are closed.