Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
kmt_sesh

Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid

477 posts in this topic

Not to support Cladking too much, but this is what I've heard also, that there was a workers tunnel that led out from the releiving chambers and was sealed at the King's Chamber to be invisible. I've heard Vyse blasted into the 1st chamber and then found the worker tunnel and cleared it. Going up to explore the other chambers.

...

This doesn't meet too well with Vyse's own description of events. And when you think about it, it doesn't actually make too much sense. Each successive chamber was produced as the pyramid rose, meaning the one below was sealed off as the next one above it was being worked on. These are massive load-bearing stones and the masonry in the chambers is largely rough and undressed, so there wouldn't even have been any need to go in and out of there.

A pre-existing tunnel could not have been concealed with smaller chunks of stones. As I said in an earlier post, necropolis workmen sealed off such passages with mortar and plaster. There is no evidence for this sort of passage in the chambers prior to Vyse's explorations, at least that I've ever encountered in the literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen a source I trusted at all so pay almost no attention to where

the concepts originate. I simply don't accept things until they fit in with all the

evidence at hand. In my opinion all the evidence fits this concept. One con-

sideration is that no one in his right mind would simply start blasting willy nilly

into the pyramid at the top of the so called grand gallery. The area is weak

obviously and even the best shaped charges might bring it all down. Correct

me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember some plaster on the beams up here

presumably so they could detect further cracking.

I could probably google this all up again. There's seems little point though un-

less someone has a source that claims he was blasting his way through virgin

pyramid.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to support Cladking too much, but this is what I've heard also, that there was a workers tunnel that led out from the releiving chambers and was sealed at the King's Chamber to be invisible. I've heard Vyse blasted into the 1st chamber and then found the worker tunnel and cleared it. Going up to explore the other chambers.

I think there might be a confusion with the pre-existing passage that led from the great gallery to Davison's chamber:

pyramidtravelers2-4.gif

You can find here or here an extract of Davison's journal where he describes how he found and explored this passage and found the first chamber.

There is no doubt that Howard Vyse had to blast his way with gunpowder to reach the other chambers.

Edited by Irna
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there might be a confusion with the pre-existing passage that led from the great gallery to Davison's chamber:

pyramidtravelers2-4.gif

You can find here or here an extract of Davison's journal where he describes how he found and explored this passage and found the first chamber.

There is no doubt that Howard Vyse had to blast his way with gunpowder to reach the other chambers.

Perhaps you have solved it. I believe some or all of the tunnels to the other chambers

had to be forced. It's easy to get off on two different subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't meet too well with Vyse's own description of events. And when you think about it, it doesn't actually make too much sense. Each successive chamber was produced as the pyramid rose, meaning the one below was sealed off as the next one above it was being worked on. These are massive load-bearing stones and the masonry in the chambers is largely rough and undressed, so there wouldn't even have been any need to go in and out of there.

Hummm... That is probably what I get for reading on various sites that I am mining for pics... Someone starts a rumor and then it is referenced again and again until a large number of people claim it is a fact...

From what Irna just posted the tunnel to Davidson's chamber is from before Vyse?

I also was reading up on Caviglia's tunnels. Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hummm... That is probably what I get for reading on various sites that I am mining for pics... Someone starts a rumor and then it is referenced again and again until a large number of people claim it is a fact...

From what Irna just posted the tunnel to Davidson's chamber is from before Vyse?

I also was reading up on Caviglia's tunnels. Very interesting.

Yes, the lowest relieving chamber was discovered in 1765 by Nathaniel Davison—hence its name. Vyse found the upper chambers almost a century later, in 1837. Something I should really look into is more detail about how Davison found the lowest chamber, which none of us has explored in this discussion. There are only stories, such as this one:

T
he story is that at the top of the Grand Gallery, he noticed that his voice was echoed in a strange way and seemed to resonate from above him. Davison tied a candle at the end of two long canes, raised it up, and noticed at the top of the Grand Gallery the small rectangular hole about 2 feet wide. He put 7 ladders together to climb to the top. He found 16 inches of bat dung in this 2 foot hole that had accumulated throughout the centuries...

Damn bats. What a crappy escapade that must've been. Ha!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally have some time to return to your list from Post 285, Harsh, since you wanted me to elaborate. In the interim it had occurred to me that you're not the only one who has posted it at UM, so I think it's fairly popular even if it reflects a lack of relevant knowledge by the person who put together the web page in question. You were the last one to post it, however, because I distinctly remember pointing out to you that I was attacking the web page, not you yourself. That still stands.

Here we go.

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?

You can refer to Samuel Birch's analysis of the hieroglyphic graffiti in both Vyse's and Perring's publications. This was 1837, mind you, and at that early time historians' understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs was very much in its infancy (Champollion had deciphered them only 15 years previous). The glyphs presented problems to early scholars because the entire titulary of Khufu was not even known yet, and most of the renderings of this king's names were the full version of Khnum-Khuf or Khnum-Khufu (the informal version of Khufu appears only once). In other words, not only were the scholars not well versed in hieroglyphs, but they possessed only a rudimentary understanding of the sound values associated with many of the 700-plus glyphs. To cut it short, thanks to subsequent research in the linguistics of hieroglyphs, we now know without a doubt that the names to be read are Khufu, Khnum-Khufu, and Medjedu—all three of which refer to the same king.

In fact, the list of names in Post 1 reflects the very earliest attempts by historians to read the glyphs. It definitely does not represent our current understanding. Funny how fringe writers refrain from using modern research or, in many cases I am sure, unknowingly repeat the errors of earlier fringe writers (such as Sitchin) who perpetrated their schemes this way.

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

This is patently incorrect and goes against the very basics of the studies of ancient Egyptian scripts. The proper term for the style of the graffiti is linear hieroglyphs, and all that basically means is hand written. Perhaps some of the earliest scholars may have been nonplussed (which I highly doubt) but there is certainly no reason for anyone today to be. Papyri texts dating to Dynasty 5 were found a very long time ago, and bear the same style of writing. This papyri dates to less than a century after Khufu's reign. And the recent discovery in the Sinai should silence this erroneous assumption once and for all: many papyri fragments written in the same style and definitively dating to the reign of Khufu.

3. No funerary text, hieroglyphics, or frescoes exists to depict the GP as a tomb. 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, especially since that is one of the most famous things the ancient Egyptians are so famous for! Think about that.

This mistake expresses the tendency to project one's lack of understanding on a subject that requires further personal knowledge to understand properly. It also reflects a mistake to mash all 3,000-plus years of pharaonic history into one moment, as though the Egyptians did the same things exactly the same way for the entire length of their long-lived kingdom. The fact is, aside from a smattering of hieroglyphs in the subterranean passages of the Step Pyramid of Dynasty 3, no Egyptian pyramid was decorated inside or out till the end of Dynasty 5 (with the exception of capstones). Their temples received decorations, including statues, relief carvings, and hieroglyphic inscriptions.

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.

This is perhaps the single-weakest point fringe writers make. It really needs to be retired—forever. Few things written by the fringe make them seem as ill informed as this old argument. Archaeologists working in Egypt today are very lucky to find a mostly unrobbed tomb once in a decade. A completely unmolested tomb is much rarer than that. When excavated by archaeologists a great many tombs, royal and private, do not yield the human remains of the person for whom the tombs were built. Rare is it even to find elaborate burial goods in tombs, royal or private. One might think fringe writers have heard of the concept called tomb robbing.

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

This relates directly to the erroneous assumption in Point 3. Few Old Kingdom sarcophagi, royal or private, were decorated. Some certainly were, of course, but more common was the palace-facade motif or similar designs than even hieroglyphic inscriptions. Decorated sarcophagi did not become more common till late in the Old Kingdom, and were not truly commonplace until the New Kingdom.

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?

The issue this brings up has been discussed exhaustively in this very debate—that is, the nature of how Vyse discovered and entered the upper chambers. A forgery on the part of Vyse is, frankly, almost beyond the point of reality. It's been well established as such in this discussion so I needn't dwell on it further right now.

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?

This has also been exhaustively discussed, and quite definitively so. The ultimate culprit is Zecharia Sitchin, who as we have seen is guilty of falsifying evidence for his books. All of the glyphs in question—designated Aa1 in modern linguistics, sometimes referred to as a sieve or placenta—bear two and sometimes three striations. Yet as I have written repeatedly, the Aa1 glyph doesn't even need striations to be read correctly. What matters is how it appears in a word or name. The chart in my OP demonstrates this. Nevertheless, Point 7 is just a regurgitation of Sitchin's falsifications, so it need not be taken seriously.

There, it's done. I hope not to see this sad list again anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally have some time to return to your list from Post 285, Harsh, since you wanted me to elaborate. In the interim it had occurred to me that you're not the only one who has posted it at UM, so I think it's fairly popular even if it reflects a lack of relevant knowledge by the person who put together the web page in question. You were the last one to post it, however, because I distinctly remember pointing out to you that I was attacking the web page, not you yourself. That still stands.

Here we go.

You can refer to Samuel Birch's analysis of the hieroglyphic graffiti in both Vyse's and Perring's publications. This was 1837, mind you, and at that early time historians' understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs was very much in its infancy (Champollion had deciphered them only 15 years previous). The glyphs presented problems to early scholars because the entire titulary of Khufu was not even known yet, and most of the renderings of this king's names were the full version of Khnum-Khuf or Khnum-Khufu (the informal version of Khufu appears only once). In other words, not only were the scholars not well versed in hieroglyphs, but they possessed only a rudimentary understanding of the sound values associated with many of the 700-plus glyphs. To cut it short, thanks to subsequent research in the linguistics of hieroglyphs, we now know without a doubt that the names to be read are Khufu, Khnum-Khufu, and Medjedu—all three of which refer to the same king.

In fact, the list of names in Post 1 reflects the very earliest attempts by historians to read the glyphs. It definitely does not represent our current understanding. Funny how fringe writers refrain from using modern research or, in many cases I am sure, unknowingly repeat the errors of earlier fringe writers (such as Sitchin) who perpetrated their schemes this way.

This is patently incorrect and goes against the very basics of the studies of ancient Egyptian scripts. The proper term for the style of the graffiti is linear hieroglyphs, and all that basically means is hand written. Perhaps some of the earliest scholars may have been nonplussed (which I highly doubt) but there is certainly no reason for anyone today to be. Papyri texts dating to Dynasty 5 were found a very long time ago, and bear the same style of writing. This papyri dates to less than a century after Khufu's reign. And the recent discovery in the Sinai should silence this erroneous assumption once and for all: many papyri fragments written in the same style and definitively dating to the reign of Khufu.

This mistake expresses the tendency to project one's lack of understanding on a subject that requires further personal knowledge to understand properly. It also reflects a mistake to mash all 3,000-plus years of pharaonic history into one moment, as though the Egyptians did the same things exactly the same way for the entire length of their long-lived kingdom. The fact is, aside from a smattering of hieroglyphs in the subterranean passages of the Step Pyramid of Dynasty 3, no Egyptian pyramid was decorated inside or out till the end of Dynasty 5 (with the exception of capstones). Their temples received decorations, including statues, relief carvings, and hieroglyphic inscriptions.

This is perhaps the single-weakest point fringe writers make. It really needs to be retired—forever. Few things written by the fringe make them seem as ill informed as this old argument. Archaeologists working in Egypt today are very lucky to find a mostly unrobbed tomb once in a decade. A completely unmolested tomb is much rarer than that. When excavated by archaeologists a great many tombs, royal and private, do not yield the human remains of the person for whom the tombs were built. Rare is it even to find elaborate burial goods in tombs, royal or private. One might think fringe writers have heard of the concept called tomb robbing.

This relates directly to the erroneous assumption in Point 3. Few Old Kingdom sarcophagi, royal or private, were decorated. Some certainly were, of course, but more common was the palace-facade motif or similar designs than even hieroglyphic inscriptions. Decorated sarcophagi did not become more common till late in the Old Kingdom, and were not truly commonplace until the New Kingdom.

The issue this brings up has been discussed exhaustively in this very debate—that is, the nature of how Vyse discovered and entered the upper chambers. A forgery on the part of Vyse is, frankly, almost beyond the point of reality. It's been well established as such in this discussion so I needn't dwell on it further right now.

This has also been exhaustively discussed, and quite definitively so. The ultimate culprit is Zecharia Sitchin, who as we have seen is guilty of falsifying evidence for his books. All of the glyphs in question—designated Aa1 in modern linguistics, sometimes referred to as a sieve or placenta—bear two and sometimes three striations. Yet as I have written repeatedly, the Aa1 glyph doesn't even need striations to be read correctly. What matters is how it appears in a word or name. The chart in my OP demonstrates this. Nevertheless, Point 7 is just a regurgitation of Sitchin's falsifications, so it need not be taken seriously.

There, it's done. I hope not to see this sad list again anytime soon.

1. Harte just commented that there were cartouche's also refering to other kings. But if you say so i will let this pass but all i can say is there is nothing scientific in the orthodoxy position as well.

2. Regarding the heiratic script, again what you offer is that "currently most Egyptologist do not believe so" as evidence, But i will take your word for this too. But what you mentioned caught my intrest regarding the pappyri written during Khufu's reign, do any of these pappyri mention the building of the great pyramid?

3.Was also trying to debate point no. 3 in a different topic that i created, i got this from 3 different people that the "pyramids before the great pyramid also did not have funerary texts", but then how do we know that they were tombs? There has to be more evidence then the evidence we find in the great pyramids for us to believe so strongly that they were tombs.I request you to post the pictures of these previous pyramid tombs (inside view ofcourse) and if you can also comment on the evidence that led us to declare them as tombs.

4.The sarcophagi in the great pyramid is very interesting if it is indeed a sarcophagii, as forget about decorations with heiroglyphics etc, even the stone has not been dressed or there are no carvings also. This comes across as very strange if it indeed a sarcophagii. Sesh are then any such bare sarcophagii, can you post pictures if you have any.

5.Regarding Vyse's findings, there are no heiroglyphs in the davison chamber which was excessed 72 years before Vyse blasted the other chambers and found the graffiti and cartouche's painted in easily available red ochre paint, this comes across as really suspicious.

6.This is not about Sitchin, he may have popularised and pointed out many of these observations, but none of these doubts require Sitchin's testimony.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Creighton, did you find which bridge Humphries Brewer built on the Danube?

http://www.unexplain...80#entry4742934

SC: Sorry - your question seems to have slipped through the net with all the other activity going on. Humphries Brewer did not build any bridge over the Danube and Walter Allen's family record does not claim such. The Allen record states:

Humfrey recieved prize for bridge he designed in Vienna over Danube.

SC: He DESIGNED a bridge to go over the Danube and won a prize for what he designed (NOT what he built). Winning a design "prize" implies there was a competition to design and, hopefully, build this bridge over the Danube. Brewer was a young man on the threshold of his career and it would have been perfectly natural (and expected) that he would be entering such prestigious design competitions. This is not at all unusual in major civil engineering projects and it still continues today. There were probably several different categories and design prizes (e.g. 'Best New Promising Engineer' category) in the competition which is normal in most projects of this kind. Ultimately though, there would be only one winner of the main prize, which seems to have been the design of William Tierney Clark and it was Clark's bridge design that was built. There is no mention of any 'Thames Tunnel' in Walter Allen's record.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Sorry - your question seems to have slipped through the net with all the other activity going on. Humphries Brewer did not build any bridge over the Danube and Walter Allen's family record does not claim such. The Allen record states:

SC: He DESIGNED a bridge to go over the Danube and won a prize for what he designed (NOT what he built). Winning a design "prize" implies there was a competition to design and, hopefully, build this bridge over the Danube. Brewer was a young man on the threshold of his career and it would have been perfectly natural (and expected) that he would be entering such prestigious design competitions. This is not at all unusual in major civil engineering projects and it still continues today. There were probably several different categories and design prizes (e.g. 'Best New Promising Engineer' category) in the competition which is normal in most projects of this kind. Ultimately though, there would be only one winner of the main prize, which seems to have been the design of William Tierney Clark and it was Clark's bridge design that was built. There is no mention of any 'Thames Tunnel' in Walter Allen's record.

SC

Creighton,

You are so out of your depth here.

My notes on the prior documentary claims re Humphries Brewer designing and building a bridge over the Danube.

Presumable source: Mary Humphries Brewer (Christie)

Document: History of Monona County, Iowa

. . . Submitting plans for the great bridge across the Danube River, which unites the two cities of Buda and Pesth, in Hungary, the feasability of construction of which, was much doubted by engineers, he was awarded the prize and built the bridge, which is a marvel of skill. . . .

Presumable source: William Marchant Brewer

Document: The Evening Leader, Corning, Sat 30 July 1921

. . . For many years he was a surveyor for the crown having been decorated by the king for the building of a bridge across the Danube at Budapest. . . .

Presumable source: uncertain

Document: The Corning Journal, Thu 16 Jan 1868

The Wellsboro papers contain an obituary notice of the late Humphries BreWer, . . . He came to this country twenty years ago, having been previously engaged as a civil engineer in constructing a bridge over the Danube. . . .

Mary Humphries Christie née Brewer was Humphries Brewer’s second child, born in England in 1849 and taken to America by her mother in 1850.

William Marchant Brewer was Humphries Brewer’s third child (and eldest son). He was born in the USA in 1851.

Neither can have known anything by personal experience of their father’s life before his emigration in 1849. (Mary was too young to remember.)

The claims made re a bridge at Budapest (not Vienna) clearly represent the family tradition passed on by Humphries Brewer’s children, one which reached Allen in a distorted form. (He made the claim elsewhere, so I am not relying on Sitchin for what he said.)

The Hungarians did not hold a design competition. They chose their engineer (William Tierney Clark) and let him get on with it. Resident Engineer was Adam Clark (apparently no relation).

As for prizes, William Tierney Clark was presented with this gold snuffbox:

wtclarksnuffbox.jpg

Adam Clark received a similar snuffbox, but it has not survived. The presentation was made at the elaborate ceremony depicted here:

Barabas-lanchid.jpg

Note that this ceremony took place in 1842, within one of the cofferdams.

Contractor for the cofferdams was George Burge, also contractor for the major part of Brunel’s Box Tunnel (the section through the Fuller’ Earth strata). Another contractor at Box (for the difficult Bath Stone section) was William Jones Brewer, Humphries Brewer’s father—and that’s the closest connection the evidence shows between Humphries Brewer and this bridge.

Stop trying to be the expert on things you know nothing about.

M.

Edited by mstower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some indication of the difficulties and rewards of working with Vyse’s manuscript.

This is in the entry for 30 March:

discoveryisolated.png

My best effort at a transcript:

. . . In Wellington’s Chamber, there are markin[g]s in ?area of the ?Stones like Quarry Marks of ?rust paint, also the ?hgic of a Bird near them, but nothi[n]g like Hieglyhics.

We have here, in short, his first note of the discovery of the “quarry marks”.

Now, some people’s fantasies will extend to Vyse having salted his (nearly unreadable) manuscript with things like this—and then putting it away in a box, where it remained until long after he died—all on the off-chance that someone might come along years later and struggle to read it.

It will not surprise you that I have no patience with such nonsense.

M.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Humphries Brewer's Obituary:

Good old Fulton History! I’ve found lots of useful things there, but I’d missed this repetition of the obituary. So well done. (I wonder if it’s a recent addition: worth another look . . . Fourth result in a search for Humphries Brewer, so it looks like it is a recent addition.)

I think you’ll find that the original of this obituary was in the Tioga Count Agitator. The wording is the same and no other paper is credited.

I saw it first in 2004.

So we have statements from his own time (long before Walter Allen and Sitchin made mention of it) that he spent time in Egypt.

Showing that the point about Queen Victoria flew right above your head.

All this shows is that the family tradition had something in it about Humphries Brewer having travelled through Egypt and the Holy Land. It’s vague.

So what do you make of this?

Presumable source: Rebecca Denton Brewer (Allen)

Document: The Evening Leader, Corning, Thu 14 Sep 1933

. . . Mr. Brewer was educated in England as a civil engineer and for seven years practiced his profession in the Holy Land before coming to America. . . .

Seven years? Prima facie, this contradicts the story told by Allen, which has Humphries making a relatively brief visit to “Syria and Jerusalem”: a few months at most.

Seems the old family tradition isn’t that clear cut.

M.

Edited by mstower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SC: He DESIGNED a bridge to go over the Danube and won a prize for what he designed (NOT what he built). Winning a design "prize" implies there was a competition to design and, hopefully, build this bridge over the Danube. Brewer was a young man on the threshold of his career and it would have been perfectly natural (and expected) that he would be entering such prestigious design competitions. This is not at all unusual in major civil engineering projects and it still continues today. There were probably several different categories and design prizes (e.g. 'Best New Promising Engineer' category) in the competition which is normal in most projects of this kind. Ultimately though, there would be only one winner of the main prize, which seems to have been the design of William Tierney Clark and it was Clark's bridge design that was built. There is no mention of any 'Thames Tunnel' in Walter Allen's record.

I've found a very interesting document: http://books.google.fr/books?id=8UigAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's a book written by the engineer William Tierney Clark in 1853, "An account of the Suspension Bridge across the River Danube". It contains, among other interesting things, a report by Count Széchenyi of his contacts with WT Clark in 1832 - when Humphries Brewer was 14 years old! - about his projects for a bridge between Buda and Pest; see "Report on Pesth Bridge" page 1, and the Questions asked by Széchenyi and Clark's answers page 8. Széchenyi mentions in this Report the name of several British an American engineers he contacted, but no mention of a precocious 14 years old engineer. You'll also find in section 5, page 26 Clark's report on the proposed bridge, dated 1837, where he explains how he has worked already for some years for the project, and visited Hungary in 1834 for this project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following up Creighton’s helpful indication that the Fulton History site has added the Watkins Express, I find there is more about Humphries Brewer and that bridge:

http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2018/Watkins%20NY%20Express/Watkins%20NY%20Express%201864%20Jan-Dec%201866/Watkins%20NY%20Express%201864%20Jan-Dec%201866%20-%200309.pdf

The Engineer and General Superintendent of the Mines is Mr. Humphrey [sic] Brewer, who lives in a large white house on a knoll near by. He is an Englishman by birth, and was an Assistant Engineer in the construction of a Suspension Bridge over the broad waters of the Danube.—Drifting about he finally reached Blossburgh. . . .

It is of course possible that Humphries Brewer, through the connections established at Box, found work in some capacity on the project—but there is no corroboration of this, and plainly the family legend credits him with far more.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found a very interesting document: http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

It's a book written by the engineer William Tierney Clark in 1853, "An account of the Suspension Bridge across the River Danube". It contains, among other interesting things, a report by Count Széchenyi of his contacts with WT Clark in 1832 - when Humphries Brewer was 14 years old! - about his projects for a bridge between Buda and Pest; see "Report on Pesth Bridge" page 1, and the Questions asked by Széchenyi and Clark's answers page 8. Széchenyi mentions in this Report the name of several British an American engineers he contacted, but no mention of a precocious 14 years old engineer. You'll also find in section 5, page 26 Clark's report on the proposed bridge, dated 1837, where he explains how he has worked already for some years for the project, and visited Hungary in 1834 for this project.

By strange coincidence, Lepsius makes no mention of Humphries Brewer either.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MS: Stop trying to be the expert on things you know nothing about… The Hungarians did not hold a design competition. They chose their engineer (William Tierney Clark) and let him get on with it. Resident Engineer was Adam Clark (apparently no relation).

Mr Stower,

The early history of this bridge contains other links to England. While W. T. Clark entered the competition with three designs, another English engineer, George Rennie, also submitted designs for various options. The referees, engineers John Plews and Samuel Slater, were also British. They gave their votes for the three bay suspension bridge not to be built at the narrowest point of the Danube between Buda and Pest but rather at its to-day existing location. (From here)

SC: That very much sounds like a design competition to me. Even the great Brunel created a design for this competition but, in the end, did not submit it to Hungary. Out of my depth? Hmmmm... I think it best we let the facts be the judge of that.

What was that you were saying about "experts"?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Creighton, I fear you're again clutching at straws here. No, it does not seem to have been a "design competition" in the modern sense, in that it was not an "open" competition. It appears that Széchenyi asked Clark to submit his projects; and that later one of the bankers, Wodianer, wished to contact Rennie in order to have a competiting project, see below.

Unless you can come with really convincing evidence, your fiction of a precocious engineer of 18, with absolutely no realisation of his own, winning a supposed "Best New Promising Engineer" prize (a very contemporary idea), will remain just that, a fiction.

The construction of the first permanent bridge in the Hungarian capital was ordered by law No. XXVI. in 1836. Following this a national committee was elected, which was chaired by Count István Széchenyi. Their first trial to achieve a national collaboration for collecting the financial background of bridge remained unsuccessful. Széchenyi began discussions with bank owner György Sina, who was ready to deal with the financial questions of the realization process of the bridge. Later an other bank, owned by Sámuel Wodianer and his son, was also joining to the job.

For the proposal of Count Széchenyi, Sina invited William Thirney Clark, the well-known English bridge engineer to come to Pest and to present his ideas about the bridge. Clark had three versions, all of them were chain bridges, and they were prepared to different sites for crossing the Danube. At the same time an other, also well-know English bridge engineer, George Rennie was invited by Wodianer to come to Pest, who presented four alternative proposals. But nobody was brave enough to select any of the seven solutions. Having the agreement of the designers, two other English specialists, Plews and Slater were asked to study the possible sites, the conditions and the proposed versions and to express their opinion about them.

From: http://www.hsz.bme.h...s/danubeb8.html

English architects George Rennie and William Tierney Clark were invited to submit their proposals for the bridge, and subsequently tendered several plans spanning different sections of the Danube.

English engineers John Plews and Samuel Slater advised that a chain bridge with as few piers as possible would minimise the damming effect, and special care should be taken when constructing the foundations.

From: http://suite101.com/...lanchid-a400297
In 1836 or 1837 Salomon von Rothschild could not have known that Georg Sina would later, in 1840,

complain bitterly to Széchenyi in a private letter that, “never would I have undertaken the building of the

Pest-Ofen bridge if you had not persuaded me to do it ...”3 Rothschild was evidently convinced that he

had been excluded from a profitable enterprise and began to intrigue, lending his support to some of the

many enemies of the project in Hungary. The Jewish banker Wodianer, from Pest, was his special ally and

he and several other businessmen from the town contracted another architect to provide a lower estimate

than Széchenyi had secured from his chosen architect. (As it later turned out, both costings were far

removed from reality). In the end Sina could only resolve the situation by granting a portion of the stock

to Wodianer and Rothschild, thus giving them a share in the enterprise

From: http://www.alanier.at/chainbridge.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the great Brunel created a design for this competition but, in the end, did not submit it to Hungary.

Which of the Brunels? And when?

Szechenyi had some contact with Sir Marc Brunel (along with Rennie and Telford) during his visit in 1832. But I've never come across any mention of a Brunel design for this bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Harte just commented that there were cartouche's also refering to other kings. But if you say so i will let this pass but all i can say is there is nothing scientific in the orthodoxy position as well.

I noticed Harte's earlier post, but too late. Before I could reply to point it out to him, he posted first to admit his error. See Post 352 on Page 24. Linguistics isn't a hard science, of course, but it follows rigid protocols and the scientific method. The names in the relieving chambers say Khufu, Khnum-Khufu, and Medjedu, and all three refer to the same king (no other kings are mentioned). This is attested at other sites, like the before-metioned discovery in the Sinai. There is no possible, logical doubt to this.

2. Regarding the heiratic script, again what you offer is that "currently most Egyptologist do not believe so" as evidence, But i will take your word for this too. But what you mentioned caught my intrest regarding the pappyri written during Khufu's reign, do any of these pappyri mention the building of the great pyramid?

It is not hieratic but linear hieroglyphic. There is a clear distinction. Hieratic is a cursive version of ancient Egyptian script that also dates to prehistory, and probably evolved simultaneous to hieroglyphs. Hieratic is loaded with abbreviations and ligatures. I have a hard time deciphering it myself, but my training has been in hieroglyphs (linear and formal). Harsh, it would be a grand mistake to doubt Egyptology just for the sake of doubting it, and nothing more. Your stance against orthodox, professional historical research is not logical. If you doubt Egyptology's research on any topic of the ancient writing, you must then prove through your own concerted research how Egyptological conclusions on the scripts are wrong. Just stating they're wrong proves nothing.

The Sinai papyri have next to nothing to do with the Great Pyramid, nor would one expect them to. They relate to quarrying operations in that distant region, so they are not going to concern themselves with building descriptions. Now, not a lot has been released on them yet, but there is mention of an official named Merer who was involved with building operations of Khufu's pyramid. My guess is he was overseeing the importation of certain valuable raw materials from the Sinai mines and quarries. I started a discussion on the Sinai discovery here, and it includes photos of the papyri fragments.

3.Was also trying to debate point no. 3 in a different topic that i created, i got this from 3 different people that the "pyramids before the great pyramid also did not have funerary texts", but then how do we know that they were tombs? There has to be more evidence then the evidence we find in the great pyramids for us to believe so strongly that they were tombs.I request you to post the pictures of these previous pyramid tombs (inside view ofcourse) and if you can also comment on the evidence that led us to declare them as tombs.

I don't wish to bog down this discussion with this line of argument, which I feel is not relevant to an evaluation of the graffiti in the Great Pyramid and the wider debate about it. This is better suited for the pyramid discussion you recently started in a separate thread. I do want to join that discussion but have very little free time as of late, due to other obligations. But for the time being, I will stress the consistent overall site plan for nearly all pyramids from Dynasty 3 to the end of Dynasty 12, which includes an overall similarity in the architecture of these pyramids inside and out (in most cases including sarcophagi); the existence of associated temples and causeways involved with the mortuary cults of all of these kings, including their own inscriptional plans and relief carvings; the fact that all of these pyramids stand in known ancient necropoli where a great many other people contemporary to each king were buried; and scientific analyses such as C14 dating which establishes that all pyramids tested do in fact belong to the timeframe where orthodox scholars have always placed them. These are the highlights, at least.

4.The sarcophagi in the great pyramid is very interesting if it is indeed a sarcophagii, as forget about decorations with heiroglyphics etc, even the stone has not been dressed or there are no carvings also. This comes across as very strange if it indeed a sarcophagii. Sesh are then any such bare sarcophagii, can you post pictures if you have any.

Khufu's sarcophagus is not the first but certainly one of the earliest to be produced in hard stone. As such an early example, it's not surprising that it's not perfectly cut and dressed. The typical royal sarcophagus of the New Kingdom, on the other hand, puts it to shame. Again, however, you cannot evaluate Old Kingdom sarcophagi based on those produced much later in time: the overall shape, dimensions, and decoration plans (if any) of Old Kingdom sarcophagi are quite different. They are in effect simply stone boxes. As for other examples, you can use Google to find any number of examples, but for now I can show Sekhemkhet's from his unfinished pyramid at Saqqara; Khafre's from G2; Menkaure's from G3, showing a palace-facade motif (the original was lost on sea en route to England, so only drawings remain); and the sarcophagus of Queen Hetepheres from the East Cemetery of Khufu's pyramid complex. An example of a beautiful sarcophagus with spare inscriptions and the palace-facade motif is that of Queen Meresankh, also from Giza.

5.Regarding Vyse's findings, there are no heiroglyphs in the davison chamber which was excessed 72 years before Vyse blasted the other chambers and found the graffiti and cartouche's painted in easily available red ochre paint, this comes across as really suspicious.

The lack of hieroglyphs in Davison's chamber is of course not acceptable evidence that Vyse forged the graffiti in the upper chambers. It wouldn't even fall under the category of circumstantial evidence. I have to think you're either missing a lot of the posts in this discussion or are ignoring them altogether, because it's already been shown how unrealistic this scenario is. For it to be true, we would have to imagine that Vyse was not only carrying around quantities of iron oxide on his person but somehow deftly coated all of his "forgeries" in dense layers of the dark mineral debris that was found in each chamber, covering all surfaces—and with no one noticing him doing this. And this says nothing of the sheer improbability of none of the Egyptian workmen, John Perring, or visiting aristocracy noticing Vyse painting this stuff in the first place. Vyse was nearly never alone. He was always with teams of people to perform his blasting operations and to conduct measurements of each chamber. It was only when the first chamber was being measured by Vyse, Perring, and another fellow that anyone noticed the markings on the stone blocks, underneath the ancient grime.

The entire approach to the hoax myth is basically illogical. It now seems to smack of desperation. As I wrote earlier, all avenues of evidentiary argument toward the hoax have been shut down in the pages of this thread: I stress evidentiary, not speculative, the latter of which serves no useful purpose. We are essentially left with the premise that Vyse must have forged the glyphs because of election dealings many years earlier, when he was a young man under the sway of his father and their patron (a superior officer). This is not at all a reasonable foundation on which to rest an entire case, so the case has collapsed in the light of day.

6.This is not about Sitchin, he may have popularised and pointed out many of these observations, but none of these doubts require Sitchin's testimony.

It is very much about Sitchin. This cannot be avoided due to the simple fact that no elaborate hoax myth even existed prior to 1980, when he published The Stairway to Heaven. Sitchin manufactured the hoax myth to help to sell his book (and subsequent books), and falsified evidence to make it happen. Sitchin was the first to propose that Howard Vyse forged the glyphs, and it took off from there in alternative circles. Sitchin misrepresented the nature and orthography of the glyphs to help bolster his case, and here is where he is directly guilty of falsifying evidence—hence all of the silly and unnecessary fuss about the Aa1 glyph that took off in alternative circles. Sitchin misrepresented the nature and likely even the existence of the so-called Brewer letters to help substantiate the hoax myth, even though we've seen in the pages of this thread that this is actually a gross exaggeration on Sitchin's part.

Remove Sitchin from the equation and you remove the entirety of the hoax myth. Sitchin invented it. All subsequent arguments in favor of the hoax myth are based on the original erroneous and falsified information presented by Sitchin. As is always the case and forever shall be, Sitchin is wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First footage from Foerster's current Egypt visit. Accompanied by Dunn and Mehler they are already uncovering forbidden relics.

Great stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First footage from Foerster's current Egypt visit. Accompanied by Dunn and Mehler they are already uncovering forbidden relics.

Great stuff.

VIDEO SNIPPED

Forbidden relics!! forbidden?!?! ca24c574a575.gif

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are already uncovering forbidden relics.

How are the relics 'forbidden' ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of the Brunels? And when?

Szechenyi had some contact with Sir Marc Brunel (along with Rennie and Telford) during his visit in 1832. But I've never come across any mention of a Brunel design for this bridge.

SC: I believe it to be I. K. Brunel as historians generally refer to him as 'Brunel' and not his father. See here.

SC;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irna: Mr. Creighton, I fear you're again clutching at straws here.

SC: I disagree. What I am in fact doing and which every critical thinking person should be doing is trying to make sense of the evidence presented before us rather than simply jumping to the first seemingly obvious conclusion. When people jump to the first, seemingly obvious conclusion in a given situation you end up with—for example—the ridiculous claim that the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs.

I think it would suit you well to re-examine the real "fiction" in this thread, to wit:

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Howard-Vyse simply could not have faked the inscriptions in the chambers because he did not know or understand AE script, implying that the inscriptions must therefore be authentic. I presented a means by which Howard-Vyse could have perpetrated such a hoax without the need for any advanced knowledge of AE Script therefore what had previously been thought by the apologists as impossible is now regarded as possible.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 1

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that some hieroglyphics were placed in tight gaps between immovable blocks where no forger could possibly have placed them. I presented a means by which glyphs could easily have been placed into such tight gaps. I also explained that, according to Hancock, the marks in the tight gaps did not look like glyphs, just random mason’s “quarry marks” (although this would need to be confirmed by experts).

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 2

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere questioned that Humphries Brewer even existed. I presented evidence to show he did exist.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 3

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Humphries Brewer was wrongly attributed with the Thames Tunnel. I have shown that this is not even mentioned in the Walter Allen family record.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 4

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that there is no record of Humphries Brewer having ever been in Egypt. I have shown that such a record does exist that states he was in Egypt.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 5

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Walter Allen was a fiction of Sitchin. I have shown that Walter Allen existed.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 6

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that Howard-Vyse was a man whose character was whiter than the driven snow. I have shown how that is not the case.

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 7

The Howard-Vyse apologists here and/or elsewhere claimed that there was no design competition to build the Chain Bridge over the Danube. I have shown that there was a competition. (I will come back to this point).

Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 8

Time and time again the apologists have made claims that have been shown to be wrong. So you have to ask yourself, who exactly is making up the “fiction” here? You have to ask yourself, who is being critically-minded with the evidence rather than accepting it at face value? You have to ask yourself, who is it that is changing perceptions here? Accepting what you see before you at face value is how you end up deceiving yourself and not wishing to dig (or think) any deeper than the surface evidence is wilful neglect. The apologists around here and elsewhere do not wish to think outside the box on this issue (and others) for fear of what they might end of finding; for fear of any new discovery bringing their long-held beliefs crashing down around them. They are happy with their superficial observations and are more than willing and happy to reject real science getting involved. They are happy with their confirmation bias. If you were to be truly objective you would think of every possible context to explain the evidence and not simply let the surface veneer confirm what you want to believe. That isn’t being honest with yourself and it most certainly isn’t science. By following such an approach you simply end up as sheeple.

Now to the bridge question. You have to ask yourself something: who awarded Humphries Brewer his prize and in what context was the prize awarded? The context is not given in the Allen record. Why would Humphries Brewer be falsely credited with the construction of the Chain Bridge at Budapest when it could so easily be discovered that this was a lie? And why is this credit not repeated in Brewer’s obituary? It stands to reason that a major achievement such as this would be foremost in most people’s obituary, so why is it in Allen’s family account but not in Brewer’s obituary?

Do you see what I am doing here? I am digging deeper, asking more questions. I am not accepting the first conclusion that would be in the apologist’s minds. And that is what everyone here should be doing. We need to be objective folks.

A number of years ago my brother-in-law won an award for designing a bridge over the river Clyde in Glasgow, Scotland. The competition was run by his university department. A number of years later, a new bridge was built over the River Clyde. It wasn’t my brother-in-law’s design that was ultimately built. But he is still very proud of his design award. The point here is context—what was the precise context of the design prize won by Brewer? It is simply not given in Walter Allen’s account and so, barring the discovery of the actual letters, we may never be able to answer that question. But we should not presume to know the answer. What we do know is that it would have been silly in the extreme for him to claim something that could so easily be disproved (and which those in the ‘know’ could tell immediately was a lie). And there is no claim of such made in his obituary. This strongly suggests that there was another context for this design prize claim.

Final Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 9

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Final Score: Apologists 0 – Fringies 9

Irna, on 28 April 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

Irna: Mr. Creighton, I fear you're again clutching at straws here.

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.