GP Hoax - Part 2 (Hill's Complicity)

[questionmark]

I found a thread by SC about these glyphs http://www.unexplain...howtopic=264655 and a member called kmt_sesh posted an image showing similar work gang glyphs from Menkaure's pyramid. Vyse must have been aware of those glyphs so why would he leave out the "mouth" glyph seen in the Menkaure work gang name? He would have copied it exactly and simply put Khufu's name in the cartouche.

If Vyse would have tried to forge anything at all he first had to know what the glyphs actually mean, in 1837 there was only a handful of people who actually could read (never mind write) glyphs and Vyse was not one of them. Only 38 years before him blasting his way into the pyramids the Rosetta stone was discovered and most people still regarded glyphs as some kind of "comic strip" showing picture stories. In 1822 Champollion managed to demonstrate that they were actually an alphabet.

[Kenemet]

If Vyse would have tried to forge anything at all he first had to know what the glyphs actually mean, in 1837 there was only a handful of people who actually could read (never mind write) glyphs and Vyse was not one of them. Only 38 years before him blasting his way into the pyramids the Rosetta stone was discovered and most people still regarded glyphs as some kind of "comic strip" showing picture stories. In 1822 Champollion managed to demonstrate that they were actually an alphabet.

Actually, by 1840-ish (not too long after), they had translated enough so that Lepisus could write a tribute (in hieroglyphs) to the King of Prussia on the doorway in the Great Pyramid:

http://www.catchpenny.org/gpglyph.html

So, if Vyse had intended to forge anything, he would have had access to that kind of information.

[Bennu]

If Vyse would have tried to forge anything at all he first had to know what the glyphs actually mean, in 1837 there was only a handful of people who actually could read (never mind write) glyphs and Vyse was not one of them. Only 38 years before him blasting his way into the pyramids the Rosetta stone was discovered and most people still regarded glyphs as some kind of "comic strip" showing picture stories. In 1822 Champollion managed to demonstrate that they were actually an alphabet.

Yeah, true. It's doubtful that Vyse would have known that he could leave out the mouth glyph and it would still make sense as a work gang name? Besides, it would look more authentic if it was exactly the same as te Menkaure one. I must admit, though, that I don't know when the Menkaure one was discovered. May have been after the Khufu one.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Bennu

[Hanslune]

You missed my point but I guess it's no matter.

Egyptology is not a science.

No I speared you point and it died quickly without a whimper, which is why you aren't trying to defend it. lol

Actually it is a science but not what some call a hard science, but what you and Scott try to pedal is neither.

You do know that science is a methodology right?

[Hanslune]

How can anyone say there are any errors when we are constantly revising

our interpretations of what everything means? Egyptologists even believe that

there are numerous errors in the PT so why would grafitti written by illiterates

be free from errors. Scott Creight has even suggested pone of the glyphs might

possibly be better interpreted as "burners of Khufu".

I am the only one who knows he doesn't know?

Anyone?

How can you be so sure of the language when none of it makes a whit of sense

and everything that comes close doesn't fit the paradigm?

Because from long experience we have found that you are an excellent source of negative truth, i.e. if you believe something it almost always wrong.......

[cladking]

No I speared you point and it died quickly without a whimper, which is why you aren't trying to defend it. lol

I know I asked you to tell me when you won an argument but, I guess, I'll also

have to request you tell me what one you won.

[cladking]

You do know that science is a methodology right?

Not exactly.

Metaphysics is a little more complicated than that.

Science starts with definitions and arranges them into axioms. It then uses these

through obsevation to invent experiment which isolates variable for study. "Science"

is also the collection of repeatable experiments which comprise theory.

Egyptology doesn't do any of this.

[Bennu]

You don't believe the forgery claims, do you cladking? All those Khnum-Khufu markings alone indicate that the pyramid was built by Khufu. Did Vyse fake all those too? Did he fake ALL of the drawings in those chambers? What's your position on this?

[cladking]

You don't believe the forgery claims, do you cladking? All those Khnum-Khufu markings alone indicate that the pyramid was built by Khufu. Did Vyse fake all those too? Did he fake ALL of the drawings in those chambers? What's your position on this?

I hesitate to comment much because I've not followed the conversation as closely as I might.

I don't have a very strong opinion except It does seem Scott Creighton has cast some doubt

on their validity and has successfully reopened the debate. The odds that they are fake may

not be high but the idea is back in peoples' minds. Perhaps something can come out of this

even if he's wrong. Perhaps people will come to appreciate that even the most basic precepts

about the ancients are not cut and dried.

That this structure was built during the lifetime of a king or very high official named "Khufu" had

been one of the few real anchors of knowledge and now even this looks a little less certain.

The language really hasn't been translated even though we know what most of the words mean.

[+DieChecker]

The signature on these drawings giving the correct orientation of these drawings in the chambers is no mere accident. If ill had no clear method of presenting the correct orientation on his drawings the drawings would only be correct to the signature 1 out of 4 times. However, Mr Hill's drawings are orientated correctly by the signature 21 out of 28 (that's 3 out of 4) and way above a random event--this is to say that the signature was clearly used as the means to correctly give the drawing's correct orientation.

The pivoting point of your consideration of Mr Hill into your conspiracy is that he most often signed his copied work at the bottom? That seems pretty weak to me. Regardless of it being consistent over most of the drawings, it is not a reliable way of judging orientation, unless Mr Hill noted somewhere that he did do this on purpose.

If could very well be that the two drawings in question got damaged, or smudged, in their original form, and then Mr Hill signed them again, as someone would if reading the hieroglyphics.

I don't see any reason to suspect conspiracy on this one point alone.

[Hanslune]

I know I asked you to tell me when you won an argument but, I guess, I'll also

have to request you tell me what one you won.

All the latest ones where you ran away. Cladking, I must ask if you figure out that to defeat you in those I simply used your own 'tactics and techniques" against you? Did you even notice? lol

[Hanslune]

Not exactly.

Metaphysics is a little more complicated than that.

Science starts with definitions and arranges them into axioms. It then uses these

through obsevation to invent experiment which isolates variable for study. "Science"

is also the collection of repeatable experiments which comprise theory.

Egyptology doesn't do any of this.

Some science does that but some don't you seem to not understand the difference between hard and soft sciences.

[Hanslune]

I hesitate to comment much because I've not followed the conversation as closely as I might.

I don't have a very strong opinion except It does seem Scott Creighton has cast some doubt

on their validity and has successfully reopened the debate. The odds that they are fake may

not be high but the idea is back in peoples' minds. Perhaps something can come out of this

even if he's wrong. Perhaps people will come to appreciate that even the most basic precepts

about the ancients are not cut and dried.

That this structure was built during the lifetime of a king or very high official named "Khufu" had

been one of the few real anchors of knowledge and now even this looks a little less certain.

The language really hasn't been translated even though we know what most of the words mean.

What will come out of this is more wasted time, endless debate and zero effect on how we view the pyramids or the AE.

You appear to be one of those who thinks if an objection is raised that the affect of raising such objection has an effect which is permament, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, in this case it doesn't.

[+DieChecker]

I don't have a very strong opinion except It does seem Scott Creighton has cast some doubt

on their validity and has successfully reopened the debate.

All he has is an Agenda, an Opinion and how a guy 100 years ago signed some sheets of paper.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I don't have a very strong opinion except It does seem Scott Creighton has cast some doubt

on their validity and has successfully reopened the debate.

Not really, all he's done is given some people on the Internet something else to talk about.

Which could just as easily and with equal effort have been done by claiming that Druids Built the Pyramids.

[Bennu]

I think Scott is posting about this now as publicity for his book. If he was really interested in debating his theories he wouldn't just post and run. Oddly, he hasn't linked his Amazon book listing. Maybe that would have made his motives too obvious.

[Hanslune]

I think Scott is posting about this now as publicity for his book. If he was really interested in debating his theories he wouldn't just post and run. Oddly, he hasn't linked his Amazon book listing. Maybe that would have made his motives too obvious.

That's pretty much his obvious objective.