Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid


  • Please log in to reply
476 replies to this topic

#46    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:00 PM

I meant to say in my previous post but I appreciate the contributions that have brought this old thread back to life. I also apologize for not keeping up, but time is tight these days. I intend to return and respond to some of the most recent comments, as soon as I am able.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#47    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:16 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 09 April 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

It's hard fact, actually. I have never been able to find photos but have read descriptions of the fragmented mortuary temple that once abutted the east side of the Great Pyramid. All that remains of the structure today—what the tourists see, that is—is the basalt paving stones. The fragmented portions of the mortuary temple reveal a full decoration plan, as one would expect for a funerary monument.

The Pyramid Texts and their nature are a different topic altogether. While they clearly express a mortuary purpose, this is not the thread for discussing them, nor will I permit this discussion to be sidetracked.

What design can possibly exist on the "mortuary temple" to establish as "hard fact" that
it is a mortuary temple.  I won't even quibble about the fact that it's not known how these
stones adorned the "temple".  Indeed, if it can be shown these designs can positively be
connected only to mortuary structures then I won't quibble about their nature either.

I know you've mentioned these before.

It wasn't appropriate nor accurate to suggest it is stupid to expect "decorations" because
there were no funerary texts at the time.  The nature of the PT is irrelevant since they do
concern rituals associated with royal ascension.  If there were a royal in the pyramid it
could be expected that there would be just these texts.

There simply is no direct evidence that any king was ever buried in a great pyramid.  This
is mere interpretation of very scanty evidence.  It is the belief common at the beginning of
the third millinium based primarily on 150 years of research and interpretation of evidence.
Some people do not believe the interpretation stands up to the facts.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#48    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,302 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:09 AM

View Postcladking, on 09 April 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

This is all strictly supposition.  It's not established fact that there was a "funerary temple"
nor that the Pyramid Texts (proto-PT) is truly funerary in nature. This is all interpretation.
It is a supposition, but it is the suppostion of 90+% of the educated, experienced experts.

I know that you don't recognize education, experience or expertise as being relevent in fringe opinon, but myself, I tend to follow the majority, because the majority follows the physical evidence.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#49    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:48 AM

View PostScott Creighton, on 08 April 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

SC: First of all, this has nothing to do with Sitchin's argument - let's be clear on that...

I bring up Sitchin only because he is, in fact, the origin of the hoax myth as it stands today—in basically the same manner as you yourself have argued it. That's a simple fact. However, I don't pretend to know everything, so if you have information to the contrary (i.e., a writer previous to Sitchin who developed and presented the idea in such a manner that Sitchin might have borrowed from it), I welcome more information on that.

Quote

...Secondly - you completely gloss over my argument.

I did no such thing. I read your post a couple of times before I responded to it. The entirety of your argument was based on the name of Khufu and its variants, as though the name were the only salient point. I responded in kind. This is up to and including your caveat that the Aa1 glyph without striations can represent the "kh" sound so long as it's "painted green/blue," which is factually incorrect. The whole gist of my post was to put the name in context with the phrases in which it resides—which is something of which fringe writers who argue in favor of a hoax do not ever seem to be aware.

Quote

The orthography simply does not matter.

If you're discussing an ancient script and the manner in which it was written in ancient times, orthography always matters. It is essential to practically every proper analysis of ancient writing. That's Linguistics 101. And it has a direct bearing on the fringe approach in favor of the hoax.

Quote

Howard-Vyse could have found a number of inscriptions (the white crown of Khufu is powerful, the workgang of Khnum-Khuf or whatever) from elsewhere, written in various script and simply copied these verbatim into the so-called Relieving Chambers.

An historical investigation cannot properly operate from could have, should have, possibly, or maybe. Evidence on the ground is what matters. Speculation cannot guide the researcher to workable answers. I am not aware of examples of graffiti elsewhere in Khufu's pyramid complex that matches the graffiti in the relieving chambers, so this approach gets us nowhere. It cannot stand on its own.

Quote

...Afterall, it could look highly suspicious if he presented a stone slab with inscriptions that said exactly the same thing as was found in the GP and also written in the same style. Howard-Vyse simply did not require knowledge of the orthography of AE scripts.He just needed to find some texts from elsewhere outside the pyramid that presented Khufu's name (which he would have recognised)  and copy these scripts verbatim into the GP - and, as stated already, he was a good copier of style as his journal proves.

My above argument stands here, too. You appear to be thinking out loud. That doesn't get us anywhere, nor can you use it as a reasonable line of corroboration.

Quote

On the issue of the marks found in the small cavities at the end of the QC southern shaft. There is no definitive interpretation of these marks. There have been some proposals as to what they might represent but no one seems to know for certain what they say, presuming they say anything at all. I find this situation rather odd. A couple of hidden chambers with a veritable plethora of perfectly readable, perfectly unambiguous markings and then another hidden 'chamber' where the obscure markings are, at best, highly ambiguous and contentious. Why are there no perfectly readable, perfectly unambiguous marks in this small, inaccessible 'chamber' at the end of this shaft? Makes you wonder.

SC

I've already explained the markings in the "air shafts" don't appear to say anything. I will add that they don't in all cases even seem to be hieroglyphs, which is why the leading theory is that they're builder's marks. And these marks are amply evidenced on pharaonic monuments from all periods.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#50    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:52 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 10 April 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

I know that you don't recognize education, experience or expertise as being relevent in fringe opinon, but myself, I tend to follow the majority, because the majority follows the physical evidence.

This isn't about the PT.

The only things relevant to truth are facts, logic, and the ability of hypothesis or theory to
make accurate prediction. Education can spread knowledge and knowledge can be extremely
beneficial, especially when coupled with experience.  Expertise is a thing of wonder that is not
often achieved but easily recognizable usually.  The subject here is facts and logic and these
should not be confused with assumptions.  I would love to see Kmt_Sesh's expertise reinforce
Harte's supposition but I don't believe this will happen. Even if it does the fact is some of the claims
are counter to the facts.  It simply isn't logical or consistent with evidence to suggest that G1 isn't
decorated like a tomb because they didn't have anything to write on the walls.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#51    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:18 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 09 April 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

Maybe it was the aliens who built the great pyramids who put the Grafiti there which was later copied by the Egyptians.

I can't tell if you're just joking, but to play it safe I will state my own stance that alien intervention need not be taken seriously. Therefore, no further comment is needed for this portion.

Quote

Date the Graffiti paint.

I've seen quite a few people suggest this, but it has problems. Depending on exactly what the pigment was made from which produced the graffiti, there might not be anything in it to date. If it does have an organic base and might be subjected to C14 analysis, can we be sure there is enough to date in the first place? Following on that, would it be worth damaging part of an inscription just to carbon date it? What if it is carbon dated and shows a date of around 2500 BCE? Would the fringe be satisfied or would its proponents exclaim that other parts of the graffiti might be fake so let's scrape away more for analysis? I tend to fear this one, myself. Moreover, how could we be certain the graffiti is reliably datable in the first place? Over a century of visitors wrote their own graffiti in there, in relatively modern times (the chambers contain far more modern graffiti than ancient), and some years back the SCA performed a thorough cleaning of the chambers to remove pollutants. Given this, then, even if the graffiti is datable, sample corruption would be almost certain, so it might be an exercise in futility.

In the end, however, no one who is actually familiar with the Great Pyramid on a professional level entertains the notion that the graffiti is fake. You would have to prevent compelling and powerful evidence for the antiquities ministry in Egypt to damage a portion of inscription for the sake of testing. Zecharia Sitchin's The Stairway to Heaven, which I still believe to be the origin of all of this unnecessary silliness, is about as far from compelling and powerful evidence as one can get.

In all my own years of study I've never come across a vetted historian of any field who's familiar with the Great Pyramid and all its parts who doubts the graffiti is fake. Don't hold your breath waiting.

Quote

Sitchin was also contacted by the Graffiti forgers great grand son,the ancestor was forced by Vyse to forge the graffiti.

I'm aware of this story. It's a perfect example of the outright dishonesty and intellectual malfeasance of which fringe writers are guilty every day. Aside from perhaps Erich von Däniken, no one was or is quite as skilled at this sort of slight-of-hand as Zecharia Sitchin.

Quote

Khufu didn't have the capabilities to build the great pyramid,

Khufu certainly didn't have those capabilities. He was the pampered monarch of one of the most powerful states in the world of the Early Bronze Age. The state over which he ruled, however, was most certainly capable. It had already been erecting pyramids since the time of Djoser. Carbon dating alone establishes beyond rational doubt that the Great Pyramid dates to around the mid-third millennium BCE, so that cinches it. This thread, however, is not for the purposes of arguing over the building of the Great Pyramid, nor do I care for it to be derailed for that purpose. Feel free to start a thread of your own if you wish to discuss it. I imagine it will be UM's Thread #6,835 on the building of the Great Pyramid. Trust me, it's a tired argument, and no one has ever successfully argued against the science.

Quote

...he might have even copied his name from some other ancient King.It was very common for people to take credit for other people's achievements and that trend has continued even till today.

It's true that Egyptian kings did this. However, there is of course no real evidence on any level that Khufu did this for the Great Pyramid. The graffiti alone disputes that. And there is no evidence whatsoever that a king named Khnum-Khuf or Khufu ruled before or after the Khufu of Dynasty 4. The Great Pyramid is his.

Quote

It is simple logic,if Khufu could build such great structures as his tomb then the 'Egomaniac' would have most definitely built a even bigger palace for himself to live in.

Perhaps he did, in so far as the footprint of the palace might be concerned. It's a pity that almost no royal palaces survive from ancient Egypt. For the tattered remains of those which have come down to us, palaces were built of the same material as common people's homes: mud brick. Mud brick structures don't tend to survive too well after 4,500 years. As far as I'm aware, in fact, no Old Kingdom palaces have ever been definitively identified.

This post is already quite long but I wish to address the other points you made, so I'll continue with another post for them.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#52    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,302 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:35 AM

View Postcladking, on 10 April 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

This isn't about the PT.

The only things relevant to truth are facts, logic, and the ability of hypothesis or theory to
make accurate prediction. Education can spread knowledge and knowledge can be extremely
beneficial, especially when coupled with experience.  Expertise is a thing of wonder that is not
often achieved but easily recognizable usually.  The subject here is facts and logic and these
should not be confused with assumptions.  I would love to see Kmt_Sesh's expertise reinforce
Harte's supposition but I don't believe this will happen. Even if it does the fact is some of the claims
are counter to the facts.  It simply isn't logical or consistent with evidence to suggest that G1 isn't
decorated like a tomb because they didn't have anything to write on the walls.
I'd say that it is not ALWAYS the facts that define what is the truth. In many situations the facts can be contrary to each other, or there may be 2 contrary points to a set of 1023 points. Those 2 points are then usually discarded or somehow explained. What is not Usually done is take those 2 points and define the Truth around them and discard the other 1021 points. That is where expertise and experience and education come in... more so then even Logic. In Historical situations, making assumptions is the greatest way to move forward with figuring out the Truth.

What is illogical about decorating the temple complex, which people visited and worshiped at, rather then decorating the tomb itself? Later pyramids were so small as to be their own temple, and thus they decorated the inside with text. It seems very straightforward and logcial to me....

Edited by DieChecker, 10 April 2013 - 02:36 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#53    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:12 AM

To continue, then.


Quote

Let's Review the Problems


1. Several cartouches with different forms/spellings were discovered (or fraudulently inscribed) on the walls of the relieving chambers. These names are suppose to identify the owner and purpose of the Great Pyramid. These names are: Saufou or Shoufou (Supis), Khoufou (Cheops), SENeshoufou, Raufu, Khnem-Khufu (Chephren?), and Khufu. Which one is it?

This sounds like something straight from the pages of Sitchin, or perhaps—to give you credit—from very old research. I've seen this argument before, and to be fair to Sitchin, it mostly comes from historians of the mid- to late-nineteenth century. That is not exactly reliable source material (but Sitchin always resolutely avoided citing modern research, or if he did, he misrepresented it for his agenda). Using only research that old would make about as much sense as a medical student using only medical texts of the mid-nineteenth century for the sake of his or her education.

I've been going back and forth with Scott on something of the same issue. At the time the graffiti was discovered, Champollion had deciphered hieroglyphs only fifteen years earlier. Very few people in the mid-nineteenth century had a working understanding of the script, which includes professional historians of the time. In other words, even the well-educated historians who examined the graffiti were not sure how to read it. No one today who has the requisite training in hieroglyphs—even an amateur historian such as I—has any trouble reading the names in the relieving chamber and identifying them as Khufu's formal birth name (Khnum-Khuf or Khnum-Khufu), informal name (Khufu), and Horus name (Medjedu). They all refer to the same man. You can pick out these three names in your list above. None of the others represent kings who ever ruled over Egypt, nor do the glyphs in the graffiti spell those names.


Quote

2. Hieroglyphic script was of a semi-hieratic style, which was not practiced until the Middle Kingdom (2000 BC.)

A common fallacy and oft-repeated by people not familiar with the ancient Egyptian written scripts. To be technical the graffiti is more a form of linear hieroglyphs, which is really nothing more than hieroglyphs written informally by hand. The earliest hieroglyphs have been dated to around 5300 BCE and hieratic to no more than a century later—in other words, almost a millennium before Khufu was born. Linear hieroglyphs date to the same origin because, again, they're nothing more than hieroglyphs in a hand-written form.

Quote

3. No funerary text, hieroglyphics, or frescoes exists to depict the GP as a tomb.

The mortuary temple alone discounts this idea. As badly ruined as it was by modern times, fragments were recovered where the basalt slabs are now (on the east side of the pyramid) and provide researchers with a decent idea of the overall decoration plan. Further fragments have been recovered from the ruined causeway, and even more that were taken from the location and built into the Middle Kingdom pyramid of Amenemhat I (Dynasty 12). A notable seen on these fragments is a prominent depiction of Wepwawet, an important funerary deity whose name (translated as "Opener of the Way") indicates his funerary function of guiding the king into the afterlife.

Quote

For the ancient Egyptians to spend so much time, energy and money to build such a monument and not spend one ounce of time or energy to decorate it in their customary elaborate, ornate funeral-ritualistic style to depict the awe-inspiring structure as a tomb for their great Pharaoh (King!) makes no common sense at all...

It doesn't make sense only to those unfamiliar with royal tombs of the Old Kingdom. Aside from the occasional smattering of glyphs in the subterranean passageways of Djoser's pyramid, no royal pyramid from Old Kingdom through Middle Kingdom bears inscriptions (aside from those of Dynasty 5 and 6). And aside from a few notable tombs of high-status dignitaries, very few private tombs were decorated, either. The principal exception is the offering chapel, a key component of all tombs from the Old Kingdom on. These typically were decorated, at least to a degree. Khufu's offering chapel was in fact his mortuary temple, which extends to the causeway—and as we've seen, these were decorated.

In other words, the ideas of a modern person who's never actually studied the culture in question, don't matter much. An argument must be framed from the extant evidence of the culture in question, and in that light, the overall mortuary aspect of the pyramid complex is crystal clear. This extends to the logical argument of the countless tombs surrounding all three colossal pyramids at Giza. It was quite obviously a massive burial ground.

Quote

4. No physical evidence exists that proves a mummy was entombed in the stone Coffer, and no physical evidence of any personal possessions (artifacts) that were customarily placed in the tomb with the deceased has ever been found. Nothing. Nada. It's as if someone went through the entire pyramid and swept it clean with a broom. I find these equally strange.

The lack of human remains contemporary to the pyramid is perhaps the weakest avenue to which fringe proponents turn. If we truly were to take this seriously, by extension we would have to include the majority of tombs archaeologists have excavated in the NIle Valley—because the original occupant of those tombs is rarely found. An archaeologist is very luck to find a mostly undisturbed tomb once in a decade, due to everything from tomb robbing to intrusive burials. A completely unrobbed tomb is much rarer than that. As far as grave goods are concerned, the same fallacy is at play. Pyramids from the Old through the Middle kingdoms have rarely yielded anything of note from their contemporary times.

Quote

5. No inscriptions or designs exist on the exterior of the Coffer. This is explained in detail on the following page.

This is related to the lack of decoration plans inside the royal tombs themselves. Very few Old Kingdom sarcophagi bear inscriptions or decoration plans aside from the palace-facade motif. Sarcophagi were not regularly detailed with decoration plans until late in the Old Kingdom.


Quote

6. Nathaniel Davison discovered the first relieving chamber in 1765 (72 years before Vyse). No hieroglyphic inscriptions were discovered in this chamber. On the other hand, Col. Vyse discovered all the chambers above Davison's Chamber, and oddly enough, they are the ONLY chambers with the ONLY hieroglyphic inscriptions that have ever been found inside the GP. Coincidence?

This doesn't really prove anything. All it says is that workmen did not apply graffiti to the walls of the lowest-most chamber. To argue otherwise is to suggest that Vyse was hoping to find higher chambers for the express purpose of fraudulently painting symbols in them. I've already been debating Scott about this in enough detail, so I needn't repeat myself here. Feel free to peruse those posts. The gist of it is, due to the complicated nature of the graffiti and the limited understanding of hieroglyphs at that time (1837), it's beyond unrealistic to suggest that Howard Vyse could successfully perpetrated such a sophisticated hoax. It's rather doubtful at that time that even Champollion could've done so—had he lived long enough—and no one at that time possessed a greater knowledge of the script than he did.

Quote

7. Why is the most important cartouche of Khufu found inside Campbell's Chamber and drawn by Vyse at the time of the discovery unlike the same cartouche that is painted on the wall in the same chamber today? Why is there three crosshatches inside the circle, depicting a sieve in the cartouche today when they did NOT exist at the time of it was discovered in 1837? Did this cartouche undergo some form of (fraudulent?) restoration?

The striations in the Aa1 glyph, or lack thereof, prove nothing. It merely reveals that those who perpetuate this myth do not know what they're talking about. I've gone over this in detail already in this thread—from the OP to the debate Scott and I have been having—so the information is already there to peruse.

Quote

http://www.rickricha...gypt/Egypt6.htm
p.s- Just playing the devils advocate.


I welcome it. Just know that my above attack is not aimed at you so much as at your source.

And just beware what you find on the internet because more often than not the information contained therein is questionable, or downright silly. The web page in your link is optimistically called "The Smoking Gun." It's more like an empty water pistol. It merely repeats the same inaccurate and short-sighted fringe whimsy that clutters the internet.

Edited by kmt_sesh, 10 April 2013 - 03:14 AM.
Clarification

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#54    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:29 AM

Kmt_sesh, for sake of accuracy don't you mean 5300 BP which is 3300 BC/BCE?

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#55    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:54 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 10 April 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

The mortuary temple alone discounts this idea. As badly ruined as it was by modern times, fragments were recovered where the basalt slabs are now (on the east side of the pyramid) and provide researchers with a decent idea of the overall decoration plan. Further fragments have been recovered from the ruined causeway, and even more that were taken from the location and built into the Middle Kingdom pyramid of Amenemhat I (Dynasty 12). A notable seen on these fragments is a prominent depiction of Wepwawet, an important funerary deity whose name (translated as "Opener of the Way") indicates his funerary function of guiding the king into the afterlife.

"Wepwawet" was, no doubt, "opener of the way" by the time the book of the dead
was written many centuries after the great pyramids were built.  The "cultural context"
from nearer the time refers only to the Eye of Horus as the opener of the way.  While
Wepwawet had a mortuary function in later history I'm aware of no evidence to tie him
to one earlier.  I have little doubt as to the meaning of the name but getting "tomb" from
"opener of the way" is a matter of interpretation.

Scott Creighton's point stands.  There is no text depicting the pyramid as a tomb.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#56    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:33 AM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 09 April 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

So, Harsh, what, according to you, would be the possible reason for the construction of the Great Pyramid?
The most plausible explanation in general is that it was built as a tomb for Khufu.
Try the Occam's Razor.
I feel Occam's Razor would go against any possibility of the Great Pyramids being a tomb.....why would so many waste so much time and energy to build such a huge structure just to be used just as a tomb. Common sense and logic goes against this premise.

I don't know why the great pyramids were constructed but surely they were not mere tombs.

Also the rain water erosion marks on the sphinx are very telling, the sphinx and also the great pyramid maybe very old structures probably having nothing to do with the egyptian civilization as we know it.


#57    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:49 AM

View PostHarte, on 09 April 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

The math discussed is just the concept of "proof" itself, which cannot be applied at all in the real (and imperfect) world.  Only in the perfect world of mathematics can one claim that anything at all has (or hasn't) been "proven.

Harte
Since you refer to math i would also like to know your opinion on this particular conundrum:
What were modern HSS doing for 1,95,000 years since they have been around for 200,000 years as declared by evolutionists....within small span of last 5000 years we have advanced so much.Do you think it is mathematically right to assume that we may have achieved civilization and advance technology way before in the 1,95,000 years?


#58    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:14 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 10 April 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:


I welcome it. Just know that my above attack is not aimed at you so much as at your source.

And just beware what you find on the internet because more often than not the information contained therein is questionable, or downright silly. The web page in your link is optimistically called "The Smoking Gun." It's more like an empty water pistol. It merely repeats the same inaccurate and short-sighted fringe whimsy that clutters the internet.
I don't see it as an attack, i like your post as you are passionate about it and unlike other topics you are giving your own opinion and reasoning rather then just using other people's opinions....this type of debate is the only thing that interests me,as i am not here to listen to blind regurgitations of the mainstream.
Though the doubts raised by the source also seem valid and thought provoking.


#59    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:19 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 10 April 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:


SC: I shall keep this brief lest we begin debating everything and the kitchen sink.

Whether you like it or not, accept it or not, the simple truth of the matter is that, contrary to the claims made by Egypt-apologists, Howard-Vyse could very easily have perpetrated a fraud in these chambers of the GP without any understanding of AE script. The only skills Howard-Vyse required were:
  • The ability to recognize the name Khufu inside a cartouche within a line of AE script. (This cartouche was published by Rosellini 5 years before Howard-Vyse set foot in Egypt).
  • The ability to copy verbatim AE script. (His own journal proves he could do this).
This is not to say that Howard-Vyse DID perpetrate a fraud, merely that he COULD have done it. My own view is that he probably DID perpetrate fraud and I come to this opinion on the following grounds:
  • His morally corrupt character as exhibited during his political career.

  • The Humphries Brewer letter, claiming that Raven and Hill renewed some markings and painted new ones in the GP.

  • The Howard-Vyse debacle of the supposed Menkaure remains in G3 – a coffin from one age, bones from another age (wrapped in wool which an AE king would never be wrapped in), neither of which have been dated to the time of Menkaure. This smacks of attempted deception on the part of Howard-Vyse and his team.
Of course, this debate could be settled fairly easily since there is a means by which the veracity (or otherwise) of these markings could be established. The question really is whether there is the political will on the part of the Egyptologists to have it done.

Vyse used gunpowder to blast his way into these chambers. Gunpowder leaves a very fine residue on surfaces that are in close proximity to the blast and may also leave specific blast patterns (spatter). This residue may be microscopic but forensic tests for specific ratios of nitrates and leads on the surfaces affected by the blast i.e. the floor, walls and ceiling of Campbell's Chamber could be tested for this residue. If the pattern of residue is significantly lower (or nil) on the inscriptions then this would suggest the inscriptions were placed AFTER the gunpowder blast and not before it. If the residue is the same on the surface of the markings as elsewhere in the chamber then this, I believe, would vindicate Vyse. I imagine it would be a fairly simple test.

Question is - is consensus Egyptology prepared to have such a test performed? Or are they happy to allow this particular debate to fester indefinitely in order to maintain the status quo? Do they really want to know the answer? Do they really care about the truth? Or are they afraid of what might be revealed by such a test?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 10 April 2013 - 09:25 AM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#60    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,626 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:18 PM

View Postcladking, on 09 April 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

Again this is untrue.  It goes beyond mere semantics.  Truth and proof most surely exist outside
math.
Stamping your foot and insisting on the existence of "proof" and "truth" will not bring about any of either.

The world's greatest thinkers have struggled with the exiistence of "truth" for millenia.  Nice to know you've solved this problem for us.

What you say about proof simply illustrates that you have no clear understanding of the term.  For example, exactly how would you "prove" the existence of something, even your own existence?

Realize the concept of proof is final.  It is not subject to revision at some later date due to some new findings or new discovery.

Exactly how is it that you know for certain that you are not some old lady laying up in some hospital ward in a coma?

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users