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 1
Scott Creighton

GP Hoax - Part 3 (Lie of the Landscape)

20 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

This third part of evidence presenting forgery in the Great Pyramid by Colonel Howard Vyse and his assistants in 1837 is related to the two earlier threads:

GP Hoax Part 1

GP Hoax Part 2

There is evidence to suggest that the vertically aligned cartouche in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid , contrary to mainstream opinion, was actually painted in-situ. It is generally believed that the cartouche and crew name was painted onto the limestone block at the quarry before being taken to the pyramid.

However, when we analyse the paint closely, some things become apparent (see figure 1):

KhufuCartouche_paint%20drips.jpg

As you can see in the baove photo (© Dr Robert Schoch), the cartouche was drawn from the bottom right-hand corner counter-clockwise. This is the area with the thickest line and as the brush goes round the line gradually becomes thinner as the paint on the brush runs dry. The bottom left-hand side of the cartouche has the thinnest line.

Now, given that most of the paint would be loaded onto the brush at the start point of the cartouche drawing (bottom-right of the cartouche) this is the area we might expect to observe any paint run.

And we do. In the image above there are two small verticla paint runs at the bottom-right of the cartouche. This paint can be seen running horizontally to the right, over some mortar in the joint between the roof trussing and the small support wall.

This clearly suggests the oval cartocueh was not drawn in the quarry at all but in-situ when the roof trussing was in place.

So, what's the point? The AEs could have painted it in-situ themselves you might say. No. This is impossible. If the AEs drew a vertical cartouche in-stu, they would NEVER paint hieroglyphs into such a cartouche rotated 90 degrees. The hieroglyphs in a vertical cartouche are ALWAYS right-way up. This is to say the AEs would have done this:

Khufu-Vertical-Glyphs.jpg

What all of this suggests, of course, is that the cartouche and glyphs were drawn in-situ but from a master that itself had been oriented horizontally (see GP Hoax Part 2).

There will be further evidence of this GP forgery presented in due course--the most compelling of all.

SC

Note: Thanks to Jon Ellison for his contribution to this.

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, The horizontal line @ base of cartouche was painted before stone was placed there. This painted line extends to the left of cartouche as well as the right, also there's not a bit of red paint on the block below, (Therefore the lines were not formed by excess paint dripping down, etc.)

Do you have a pic of the entire cartouche?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get is: how does any of the above demonstrate that the dating of the GP is wrong?

To me this thingy sounds like claiming that because Bill Clinton "did not have sex with that woman" the Vietnam war did not happen.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's unwise to base your conclusions solely on sketches/drawings of tomb paintings, stone carvings etc. I made same mistake w/ Tomb of Djehutyhotep. For the most part, those making the drawings do a great job, but among the many available on the net, there are differences, omissions,errors, and I finally found and studied pics of the tomb paintings.

Vyse probably made some small errors along the way, we all do...doubt this will change the accepted GP date anyway. :whistle:

As all can see, the red painted line extends full length along the edge of the block above, and not a bit of red paint on the lower block. Also, it's possible the block was laying on it's L side, (see pic above) in the quarry when the red paint was applied.

SC, Do you have a pic of the entire cartouche?

Edited by scorpiosonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That red stuff along the crack could have been caused by condensation or something. Now please answer this; did Vyse also draw the Khnum-Khufu cartouches? If he did, why? If he didn't, who did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To refute the "counter clockwise" suggestion (that being the brush had more paint on it St the lower righthsnd side of the cartouche) have you ever sat down to write something and started off tentative and ended confidently?

I see it all the time with my students, they're all unsure of themselves at the start and the work is always faded and weakly applied while at the end it's bold and done neatly. Here it's s case of a man going "I've only a finite about of paint left, and I've all this cartouche to do, I'll ration it" or a right handed person doing a bit of "make works' rushing to get it done, less bold on the left side side because he's right handed.

Also, of he was doing it in situ, surely he'd have done it higher then right at the bottom of the rock, where you actually lose part of the cartouche?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get is: how does any of the above demonstrate that the dating of the GP is wrong?

It obviously doesn't - it is another one of SC's imaginary tales being extrapolated to suit his own beliefs.

To me this thingy sounds like claiming that because Bill Clinton "did not have sex with that woman" the Vietnam war did not happen.

Pretty much as disparate as that (having followed SC's inane ramblings for a while).

Cheers,

Badeskov

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Also, of he was doing it in situ, surely he'd have done it higher then right at the bottom of the rock, where you actually lose part of the cartouche?

Precisely. Since Scott says that the drawing started at the end where the joint is, surely Vyse would have started it up some from the joint. If his intention was to make it look like the cartouche extends beyond the joint then he would have made it more cut off than it is. It barely looks like it goes beyond the joint so what was the point of positioning it like that? It just wouldn't make sense to draw it in that particular position if it was faked.

Edited by Bennu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Vyse paint the cartouche sideways?

Not to mention the cartouche was not in the book he was supposedly referencing to create these "hoaxed" glyphs.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That red stuff along the crack could have been caused by condensation or something. Now please answer this; did Vyse also draw the Khnum-Khufu cartouches? If he did, why? If he didn't, who did?

The 'red stuff' IS paint. :yes: "However, when we analyze the paint closely, some things become apparent (see figure 1):"

"Condensation or something." Surely you can't be serious?!? :unsure2:

Precisely. Since Scott says that the drawing started at the end where the joint is, surely Vyse would have started it up some from the joint. If his intention was to make it look like the cartouche extends beyond the joint then he would have made it more cut off than it is. It barely looks like it goes beyond the joint so what was the point of positioning it like that? It just wouldn't make sense to draw it in that particular position if it was faked.

SC cut out the other side in OP pic, because he didn't want us to see the whole symbol.

Either pic in link below is photoshopped and/or cartouche was tampered w/ (@ least once, paint is very dark on L side of red circle.

See for yourselves abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1024757/pg4&mem=

Edited by scorpiosonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In other photos I can't even see any red stuff along that joint. For all I know, that could be dirt or fungus or something. I can't see there being enough ochre paint on a brush to make all that from drawing that cartouche outline. It doesn't look like the paint was runny at all, based on the whole rest of the drawing. If it was paint run it wouldn't have run upward from the joint, as it appears, and it wouldn't have gone that far laterally on both sides of the drawing. I don't know what it is but I don't believe it's paint run.

Edited by Bennu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Photoshopped....it's a fake of a hoax, and a fraud forgery.

Helluva way to try and sell books. :td:

Edited by scorpiosonic
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The glyph that you have posted has been misinterpreted,it is actually assembly instructions for the site builders,and as can be clearly seen says This Side Up. :yes:

jmccr8

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The glyph that you have posted has been misinterpreted,it is actually assembly instructions for the site builders,and as can be clearly seen says This Side Up. :yes:

jmccr8

Good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're to again believe in a Conspiracy due to the opinion of one person.... on how an AE held a brush and how much paint he thinks would have been on it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forged cartouche idea is the only thing Scott has to defend his theory with. Frankly, I find the theory itself very weak, which is that the pyramid was a seed vault. Seems pretty ludicrous to me. It's a necropolis, not a seed storage site. The whole Giza complex is a funerary complex. Everything on the West side of the Nile is funerary related. Sorry, but the theory is just not believable in my opinion.

I haven't actually read Scott's theory but I got the idea from his website http://www.scottcrei...zaprophecy.html that it's about the pyramid being a vault to preserve seeds and cultural items in case of major global disaster. I would think that a simple subterranean chamber would suffice for that. Why even build a pyramid? We know from the Pyramid Texts that pyramids were intended as tombs. Without a valid pyramid theory, what difference does it even make whether the cartouche was forged? The Great Pyramid was built by the Egyptians, apparently Khufu, sometime around 3000-2500 BC. The exact years may vary but everything points to that time frame, including all carbon dating projects. If the pyramids were intended for the purpose Mr. Creighton proposes, why has none of the things he mentioned been found in any of the pyramids? All that WAS found are empty sarcophagi, of exactly the type used for the dead. They're tombs, alright, just that the mummies aren't in the easily found chambers but in secret chambers within the pyramids, accessible only by cleverly concealed entrances behind innocent looking stone blocks.

The website also says that the pyramids "align with Orion's Belt". This is just another form of Robert Bauval's unconvincing Orion Correlation Theory. Then it has some stuff about the 23.5 degree tilt of earth's axis, which I find unlikely to be related to the Giza pyramids at all. Just more fringe silliness of the Hancock/Bauval type, from what I can see. Appropriate that the forward of his book was written by Hancock rather than, say, a respectable scientist. I do congratulate him on completing and getting a book published though.

Edited by Bennu
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forged cartouche idea is the only thing Scott has to defend his theory with. Frankly, I find the theory itself very weak, which is that the pyramid was a seed vault. Seems pretty ludicrous to me. It's a necropolis, not a seed storage site. The whole Giza complex is a funerary complex. Everything on the West side of the Nile is funerary related. Sorry, but the theory is just not believable in my opinion.

I haven't actually read Scott's theory but I got the idea from his website http://www.scottcrei...zaprophecy.html that it's about the pyramid being a vault to preserve seeds and cultural items in case of major global disaster. I would think that a simple subterranean chamber would suffice for that. Why even build a pyramid? We know from the Pyramid Texts that pyramids were intended as tombs. Without a valid pyramid theory, what difference does it even make whether the cartouche was forged? The Great Pyramid was built by the Egyptians, apparently Khufu, sometime around 3000-2500 BC. The exact years may vary but everything points to that time frame, including all carbon dating projects. If the pyramids were intended for the purpose Mr. Creighton proposes, why has none of the things he mentioned been found in any of the pyramids? All that WAS found are empty sarcophagi, of exactly the type used for the dead. They're tombs, alright, just that the mummies aren't in the easily found chambers but in secret chambers within the pyramids, accessible only by cleverly concealed entrances behind innocent looking stone blocks.

The website also says that the pyramids "align with Orion's Belt". This is just another form of Robert Bauval's unconvincing Orion Correlation Theory. Then it has some stuff about the 23.5 degree tilt of earth's axis, which I find unlikely to be related to the Giza pyramids at all. Just more fringe silliness of the Hancock/Bauval type, from what I can see. Appropriate that the forward of his book was written by Hancock rather than, say, a respectable scientist. I do congratulate him on completing and getting a book published though.

Yes lets congratulate him on that plus another success he has had. Some years ago he denounced mainstream science and wanted to be an 'independent mind', in this he has succeeded, mainstream science doesn't pay the slightest attention to him. A big WIN for Scot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for those who contest the fact that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu, some things were found in 2008 which pretty much proves it was. Somebody linked this article on another forum https://www.academia...Egypt_NEA_77_1_

It's about a site on the Red Sea coast called the Harbour of Khufu. The article says that it was occupied exclusively at the beginning of the 4th Dynasty and was particularly used by the expeditions of Khufu. You'll see that there is a Khnum-Khufu cartouche as part of a quarry mark on a stone there and also some writing on papyrus about bringing stone to Giza for "Khufu's Horizon", which was the name of the Great Pyramid. When you put this together with everything else, like the chamber cartouches, you have a very solid case for Khufu having built the Great Pyramid.

Here's a screen capture I made of the cartouche. The authors called it the "birth name" of the king and say that there were five such markings found. I suppose Vyse forged all those too. Note in the middle left the exact same backward form of the roll of cloth as seen in the chamber cartouches and below it the exact same form of another glyph used in the chamber cartouches.

209lq2f.png

This is from the papyrus mentioning the Horizon of Khufu.

sb0nb8.png

Edited by Bennu
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for those who contest the fact that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu, some things were found in 2008 which pretty much proves it was. Somebody linked this article on another forum https://www.academia...Egypt_NEA_77_1_

It's about a site on the Red Sea coast called the Harbour of Khufu. The article says that it was occupied exclusively at the beginning of the 4th Dynasty and was particularly used by the expeditions of Khufu. You'll see that there is a Khnum-Khufu cartouche as part of a quarry mark on a stone there and also a bunch of stuff on papyrus about bringing stone to Giza for "Khufu's Horizon", which was the name of the Great Pyramid. When you put this together with everything else, like the chamber cartouches, you have a very solid case for Khufu having built the Great Pyramid.

Quite, quite, but the problem there is that the fringies don't know much more than what other fringies (especially the Hon. Prezz and Hon. Vice-Prezz of the Guild of Quacks) have said before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but, but, but won't the fringe just claims that Egyptologist are in a panic over superfringe Scott about to prove the forgery? Wouldn't the evil masters of Egypt's past just have created more forgeries to try and continue the evil cover up? lol!

You know they'll do that that's the easiest out.

2 people like this

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.