Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid

[Merc14]

The problem with many of the fringe writers is that after writing their 1/2 inch deep theory they mpugn the "other side" with various accusations that belittle everything the person has spent their life learning.

[cladking]

The problem with many of the fringe writers is that after writing their 1/2 inch deep theory they mpugn the "other side" with various accusations that belittle everything the person has spent their life learning.

I usually prefer to add only something constructive but can't let this statement stand.

The fact is it's the orthodox side that always resorts to ad hominen attacts first, foremost, and always.

Fringe folk get pretty passionate but they usually avoid name calling.

Sitchen is very low on my list of good sources but the fact is that it NEVER matters where an idea originates; only it's merits are important.

[The_Spartan]

I usually prefer to add only something constructive but can't let this statement stand.

The fact is it's the orthodox side that always resorts to ad hominen attacts first, foremost, and always.

Fringe folk get pretty passionate but they usually avoid name calling.

Sitchen is very low on my list of good sources but the fact is that it NEVER matters where an idea originates; only it's merits are important.

Then, do tell, clad king, how does a gesyer construction theory stand????

Fringe folk do get defensive when asked for evidence to substantiate their theories.

Dont you get defensive???????

Edited April 17, 2013 by The_Spartan

[cormac mac airt]

I usually prefer to add only something constructive but can't let this statement stand.

The fact is it's the orthodox side that always resorts to ad hominen attacts first, foremost, and always.

Fringe folk get pretty passionate but they usually avoid name calling.

Sitchen is very low on my list of good sources but the fact is that it NEVER matters where an idea originates; only it's merits are important.

When the originator can be shown, as Sitchin has, to have fabricated his claims then yes it DOES matter where the idea originates.

cormac

[cladking]

When the originator can be shown, as Sitchin has, to have fabricated his claims then yes it DOES matter where the idea originates.

So? Even if you can show Sitchen intentionally lied for his own selfish purposes the fact

remains that we can never know all of his motivation. Perhaps some part of his reason for

questioning this is that it didn't sound right to him or contradicted something he believed.

Now days ideas are a dime a dozen but the fact is ALL human progress has always started

with a single (usually simple) idea. This is the nature of the beast and while not casting

judgement on Sitchen, I'd wager much more important isdeas have originated from far

worse sources in the past.

People have to get it out of their heads that anything said by an expert is necessarily right

and anything said by a poor source, a charlatan, or an amateur is necessarily wrong. The

fact is experts are always proven wrong within a few centuries anyway, and usually much

much sooner.

I believe I have it on good authority that the marks couldn't have been inserted between the

stones. I doubt anyone would lie about such a thing. However, SC and others make an in-

teresting case that the graffitti could have been changed. Untill such time as more facts

are established it is my opinion that there were builders' marks but there is some possibility

they were amended by fraud.

I've read enough Vyse to have some small confidence in his scientific integrity.

I'm satisfied with just saying I don't know but will continue reading the evidence.

I don't have a dog in the fight anyway since I'm already pretty confident that someone we know

as "khufu" was king about the time the final version of G1 was completed. This doiesn't mean

I accept any of the orthodox assumptions but those Egyptologists sure do come up with some

facts and evidence.

They do everything well except assume.

[cladking]

Fringe folk do get defensive when asked for evidence to substantiate their theories.

Nobody has much evidence for anything because most of the evidence is thin and requires interpretation.

Frankly my guess is that much of the reason the evidence is so thin is that 3500 years of well intentioned

"archaeologists" have destroyed much of the evidence. Of course poorly intentioned tomb raiders and kids

have also done enormous damage. We are judging an entire culture by how they buried their dead and the

evidence for the culture is thin.

You can't tell much about a people from little more than pot shards and how bones are arranged in their graves.

I see no less defensiveness from orthodoxy.

Edited April 17, 2013 by cladking

[cormac mac airt]

So? Even if you can show Sitchen intentionally lied for his own selfish purposes the fact

remains that we can never know all of his motivation. Perhaps some part of his reason for

questioning this is that it didn't sound right to him or contradicted something he believed.

Now days ideas are a dime a dozen but the fact is ALL human progress has always started

with a single (usually simple) idea. This is the nature of the beast and while not casting

judgement on Sitchen, I'd wager much more important isdeas have originated from far

worse sources in the past.

People have to get it out of their heads that anything said by an expert is necessarily right

and anything said by a poor source, a charlatan, or an amateur is necessarily wrong. The

fact is experts are always proven wrong within a few centuries anyway, and usually much

much sooner.

I believe I have it on good authority that the marks couldn't have been inserted between the

stones. I doubt anyone would lie about such a thing. However, SC and others make an in-

teresting case that the graffitti could have been changed. Untill such time as more facts

are established it is my opinion that there were builders' marks but there is some possibility

they were amended by fraud.

I've read enough Vyse to have some small confidence in his scientific integrity.

I'm satisfied with just saying I don't know but will continue reading the evidence.

I don't have a dog in the fight anyway since I'm already pretty confident that someone we know

as "khufu" was king about the time the final version of G1 was completed. This doiesn't mean

I accept any of the orthodox assumptions but those Egyptologists sure do come up with some

facts and evidence.

They do everything well except assume.

So, sucking people in with a lie is a valid way of presenting and promoting a theory? Well, now I understand where you're coming from. And here I though you had at least a modicum of integrity. Perhaps I was wrong.

cormac

[cladking]

So, sucking people in with a lie is a valid way of presenting and promoting a theory? Well, now I understand where you're coming from. And here I though you had at least a modicum of integrity. Perhaps I was wrong.

What I'm trying to say is that even a lie isn't necessarily only a lie and even a lie can still be an idea;

a very very low grade idea. If trying to figure out if there's a cat in a box passes for philosophy then

why does the concept that even a lie can be true should be so off-putting?

To my knowledge it hasn't been shown Sitchen lied. Did I miss something?

[kmt_sesh]

...

To my knowledge it hasn't been shown Sitchen lied. Did I miss something?

Carefully read this web page, which cormac posted earlier. You may well have missed the link. You might also wish to download Vyse's journal pages from another of cormac's earlier posts. I haven't had time to read these yet, but from the substance of them, it definitely appears Sitchin (and all those who still adhere to his flawed argument) misrepresent Vyse from start to finish.

As for the link I posted here, this is something I never noticed. I never thought to compare Sitchin's illustrations with those drawn by Vyse himself. Sitchin definitely falsified evidence. When one does that, no matter what facts or attempts at facts the rest of his material might have, his entire work has lost credibility and cannot be taken seriously.

[cormac mac airt]

What I'm trying to say is that even a lie isn't necessarily only a lie and even a lie can still be an idea;

a very very low grade idea. If trying to figure out if there's a cat in a box passes for philosophy then

why does the concept that even a lie can be true should be so off-putting?

To my knowledge it hasn't been shown Sitchen lied. Did I miss something?

There's a big difference between a philosophical debate (i.e. Schrödinger's cat) which is two different ways of looking at what "might" be true, as opposed to presenting a known fabrication as the truth. I would have thought you'd know the difference.

You don't keep up much, do you?

So that leaves only the argumentation. Again, this reprises Sitchin on the so-called "spelling mistakes" in the inscriptions discovered by Howard Vyse. This argument has long since been demolished, most especially by Martin Stower and Frank Dornenburg. Readers who want to know more will find here a page explaining the pseudo-misspelling of Khufu’s name of Khufu, with quality reproductions of the offending cartouche, showing how Sitchin either wilfully, or through lacking access to original sources, distorted the cartouche, so generating the "error" himself:

Two further pages on the same site also make short work of Sitchin’s remaining arguments: "The wrong letters", and "The Horus name", which shows that, in 1837, the "forger" Howard Vyse would have had to invent a name for Khufu, even though, at that particular time, no one had any idea that these symbols represented the name of a king ...

In short, despite Grimaud’s little allegory on the pitfalls of archaeological interpretation - which, without too much difficulty, could be applied to his own interpretations! – we find ourselves still unsatisfied on the question of the "definitive" evidence proving that Howard Vyse committed forgery. In the meantime, this example provides a good illustration of the lack of rigour of Grimault’s approach (vague sources, unproven assertions, off topic allegories...) and the lack of critical thinking demonstrated by many of his admirers, whose comments rave about the excellence of his article without once stopping to enquire about his sources ...

http://irna.lautre.net/Revelation-of-the-Pyramids-Sitchin

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

SC: You have shown precisely zilch. Get with the script here and actually go back and read and understand what it is I am actually arguing. It has hee-haw to do with Sitchin. And it is YOU that is jumping around here as if you have never been presented with any contrary evidence:

KMS: It would seem Harte is right.

SC: Oh, this’ll be interesting. Harte? The guy who professes never to read any of my posts? Get your popcorn ready folks.

KMS: I am of course very familiar with this entire thread, and have read all of its posts.

SC: You and I both. Pity some of the others are still way behind the game line.

KMS: You have offered speculations about how Vyse "might have" done this or "could have" done that, but this does not carry the day. It is only speculation.

SC: Of course it is speculation (I have never said otherwise). And neither was it intended “to carry the day”. This was not my point. My point was intended merely to open up the debate by demonstrating how it was perfectly feasible (albeit speculative) for Howard-Vyse to perpetrate such a fraud. For, as you well know, it has long been the view in academic circles that it would have been impossible for Howard-Vyse to have perpetrated such a fraud because it was ASSUMED that in order to do so he would have required knowledge of AE script to a level of understanding that surpassed that of any academic of his day. And this assumption of impossibility served very well to confer upon the glyphs in question a level of authenticity that few would dare question. I have shown how this assumption by consensus Egyptology might be completely bogus, ergo the authenticity conferred upon these glyphs may well be unfounded. Howard-Vyse DID NOT require any such advanced understanding of AE script in order to perpetrate such a fraud, ergo, such a fraud WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE.

ENTIRELY POSSIBLE - THAT IS THE POINT.

What was once thought impossible is now perfectly possible. The game has changed.

KMS: You are certainly not the voice of authority on this subject, so I will take evidence over speculation every time—

SC: I have never claimed to be the “voice of authority on this subject” and nor would I. What I do claim to be, however, is someone who is more open to considering all possibilities as to how such a fraud MIGHT have been perpetrated. It rather seems to me that the Egypt-apologists on this board are more content to bury their collective head in a sarcophagus on that score. They simply don’t want to hear how Howard-Vyse COULD have done it. That possibilty just doesn’t jive with their apologist sensitivities. Well tough. The bottom line, whether you agree or not, whether he did or not—the fact is he COULD have done it. No longer can the apologists insist that these inscriptions must be genuine because Howard-Vyse did not have the knowledge to perpetrate such a fraud. The simple truth is he didn’t need the knowledge the apologists claim was necessary. So this argument is complete and utter bunk—Howard-Vyse COULD (repeat could) have perpetrated a fraud. And that, my friend, is the game changer. No longer can the Egypt-apologists insist that fraud could not have been committed on the basis that Howard-Vyse did not have the orthographic knowledge to do it. He simply did not need such knowledge—just the ability to verbatim copy and we certainly know he had that ability. It’s right there in his own journal.

KMS:…and cormac's links to Vyse's journals constitute real evidence.

SC: Regurgitation of Sitchin. Who cares? Irrelevant.

KMS: I would state it in stronger terms than cormac did in his last post because Sitchin is much more than peripherally involved. What you don't seem to understand, Scott—or do not wish to admit—is that this hoax business began with Sitchin.

SC: And what you fail to understand is that I don’t give a hee-haw where it began. Whether by Sitchin or by a cook in a kitchen—it is the FACTS of the case, the EVIDENCE of the case that must be considered, not who is commenting upon it. I have every right to make my own comments upon the evidence even if a zillion people have commented upon it before me. And I also have the right to come to my own conclusion regardless of what others may have concluded before me. And that is what I am doing.

KMS: You would not be arguing in favor of a hoax yourself because Sitchin is the one who started it, plain and simple. No Sitchin, no notion of a hoax.

SC: BS. I argue on the basis of the EVIDENCE and nothing but the evidence. You might want to try doing it yourself sometime.

KMS: And we've now seen how Sitchin falsified evidence to sustain his notion of a hoax, which weakens his case—and all those following on it—significantly.

SC: Deal with MY argument, not Sitchins. I couldn’t give a monkey’s what Sitchin has to say. Deal with what I am arguing. But then, I can understand why it suits you to keep diverting the thread to Sitchin. A far easier target for you.

KMS: If you disagree, that's fine. Please show us real information on who perpetuated the idea of this hoax prior to Sitchin.

SC: No, you have it all backwards here. The question is not who was responsible for starting the hoax theory—the question is whether the glyphs in these chambers are genuine or not. THAT is the question and THAT is what consensus Egyptology has to deal with. It is not for alternative challengers to disprove these glyphs as fraudulent, it is for consensus Egyptology to prove they are genuine. So, where is the scientific proof? I am not interested in a zillion consensus Egyptologists all agreeing with each other that the glyphs look genuine—I am asking that you present hard, empirical evidence to prove their veracity. Where’s the evidence? Let’s see it.

KMS: So, you yourself have presented only speculation and idle thoughts on your part—which is precisely zilch, in fact.

SC: Actually, it’s not. For whereas before it was assumed it was impossible for Howard-Vyse to have perpetrated such a fraud, my intervention has shown (albeit speculatively) how this fraud COULD have been perpetrated, ergo, it was not at all impossible. The game has changed. And, as such, the onus is now squarely upon consensus Egyptology to prove—scientifically—that these inscriptions are contemporary with the pyramid. You will take evidence every time--so where is it? Show us your proof.

SC

Edited April 17, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[Swede]

ENTIRELY POSSIBLE - THAT IS THE POINT.

SC

Or, perhaps more accurately phrased, "speculatively plausible".

.

[Merc14]

So Vyse putting up graffiti, while entirely possible, is highly unlikely based on the evidence presented. Does that pretty much sums up this argument?

[cormac mac airt]

So Vyse putting up graffiti, while entirely possible, is highly unlikely based on the evidence presented. Does that pretty much sums up this argument?

I think it's more accurate to say that Vyse's putting up graffiti in the form of Khufu's name, in an accurate yet previously unevidenced form known prior to more modern times, while technically possible is highly unlikely based on the evidence. And as he had Wilkinson's book in which to go on, if he wanted to forge anything and it be taken seriously he'd have used the best available knowledge of the language at the time. Knowledge which didn't include the version of Khufu's name which is oft speculated as being a forgery.

cormac

[Merc14]

I think it's more accurate to say that Vyse's putting up graffiti in the form of Khufu's name, in an accurate yet previously unevidenced form known prior to more modern times, while technically possible is highly unlikely based on the evidence. And as he had Wilkinson's book in which to go on, if he wanted to forge anything and it be taken seriously he'd have used the best available knowledge of the language at the time. Knowledge which didn't include the version of Khufu's name which is oft speculated as being a forgery.

cormac

Yeah but I said it in 20 words or less!

[cormac mac airt]

Yeah but I said it in 20 words or less!

Yeah, but unfortunately not everyone is aware of the bold portion in my previous post and even fewer have probably read Vyse's journals or the two websites based on same. Those interested either don't know about the above or they've been reading way too much Sitchin.

cormac

[+DieChecker]

Yeah, but unfortunately not everyone is aware of the bold portion in my previous post and even fewer have probably read Vyse's journals or the two websites based on same. Those interested either don't know about the above or they've been reading way too much Sitchin.

cormac

Those journals are Obvious Forgeries....

Someone had to say it...

Just Joking.......

[Baz Dane]

For, as you well know, it has long been the view in academic circles that it would have been impossible for Howard-Vyse to have perpetrated such a fraud because it was ASSUMED that in order to do so he would have required knowledge of AE script to a level of understanding that surpassed that of any academic of his day. And this assumption of impossibility served very well to confer upon the glyphs in question a level of authenticity that few would dare question. I have shown how this assumption by consensus Egyptology might be completely bogus, ergo the authenticity conferred upon these glyphs may well be unfounded. Howard-Vyse DID NOT require any such advanced understanding of AE script in order to perpetrate such a fraud, ergo, such a fraud WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE.

I'm no expert in this, but in essance this says to me that Consensus Egyptology has perpetuated a lie?

?

Sooooooo...

When one does that, no matter what facts or attempts at facts the rest of his material might have, his entire work has lost credibility and cannot be taken seriously.

I can not take Consensus Egyptology seriously then??

Food for thought!

[jules99]

Re' Vyses discovery of the cedar box with inscription and remains in Menkaures pyramid. Its known that the box and remains date from different eras, but has any testing been done on the text attributing the box to Menkaure? Testing might be easier as the box is in England, further this could confirm or negate any complicity of Vyse forging text. If the text is found to be an after addition, then the whole find could be deemed a setup, or hoax, then there would be a strong reason to examine Vyses finds more carefully.

NB Im not a Sitchin supporter, but maybe set a thief to catch a thief.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Carefully read this web page, which cormac posted earlier. You may well have missed the link. You might also wish to download Vyse's journal pages from another of cormac's earlier posts. I haven't had time to read these yet, but from the substance of them, it definitely appears Sitchin (and all those who still adhere to his flawed argument) misrepresent Vyse from start to finish.

As for the link I posted here, this is something I never noticed. I never thought to compare Sitchin's illustrations with those drawn by Vyse himself. Sitchin definitely falsified evidence. When one does that, no matter what facts or attempts at facts the rest of his material might have, his entire work has lost credibility and cannot be taken seriously.

I am pretty certain that Vyse forged the Khufu cartouche's. Things about the great pyramid do not add up with the features of other pyramids thought to be it's contemparies.

People are not stupid that they will blindly buy into what Sitchin claims. It certainly goes against logic for people to believe that, the great pyramids being so different from other pyramids thought to be it's contemporary were built by the same people.

[Harsh86_Patel]

SC: Oh, this’ll be interesting. Harte? The guy who professes never to read any of my posts? Get your popcorn ready folks.

SC: You and I both. Pity some of the others are still way behind the game line.

SC: Of course it is speculation (I have never said otherwise). And neither was it intended “to carry the day”. This was not my point. My point was intended merely to open up the debate by demonstrating how it was perfectly feasible (albeit speculative) for Howard-Vyse to perpetrate such a fraud. For, as you well know, it has long been the view in academic circles that it would have been impossible for Howard-Vyse to have perpetrated such a fraud because it was ASSUMED that in order to do so he would have required knowledge of AE script to a level of understanding that surpassed that of any academic of his day. And this assumption of impossibility served very well to confer upon the glyphs in question a level of authenticity that few would dare question. I have shown how this assumption by consensus Egyptology might be completely bogus, ergo the authenticity conferred upon these glyphs may well be unfounded. Howard-Vyse DID NOT require any such advanced understanding of AE script in order to perpetrate such a fraud, ergo, such a fraud WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE.

ENTIRELY POSSIBLE - THAT IS THE POINT.

What was once thought impossible is now perfectly possible. The game has changed.

SC: I have never claimed to be the “voice of authority on this subject” and nor would I. What I do claim to be, however, is someone who is more open to considering all possibilities as to how such a fraud MIGHT have been perpetrated. It rather seems to me that the Egypt-apologists on this board are more content to bury their collective head in a sarcophagus on that score. They simply don’t want to hear how Howard-Vyse COULD have done it. That possibilty just doesn’t jive with their apologist sensitivities. Well tough. The bottom line, whether you agree or not, whether he did or not—the fact is he COULD have done it. No longer can the apologists insist that these inscriptions must be genuine because Howard-Vyse did not have the knowledge to perpetrate such a fraud. The simple truth is he didn’t need the knowledge the apologists claim was necessary. So this argument is complete and utter bunk—Howard-Vyse COULD (repeat could) have perpetrated a fraud. And that, my friend, is the game changer. No longer can the Egypt-apologists insist that fraud could not have been committed on the basis that Howard-Vyse did not have the orthographic knowledge to do it. He simply did not need such knowledge—just the ability to verbatim copy and we certainly know he had that ability. It’s right there in his own journal.

SC: Regurgitation of Sitchin. Who cares? Irrelevant.

SC: And what you fail to understand is that I don’t give a hee-haw where it began. Whether by Sitchin or by a cook in a kitchen—it is the FACTS of the case, the EVIDENCE of the case that must be considered, not who is commenting upon it. I have every right to make my own comments upon the evidence even if a zillion people have commented upon it before me. And I also have the right to come to my own conclusion regardless of what others may have concluded before me. And that is what I am doing.

SC: BS. I argue on the basis of the EVIDENCE and nothing but the evidence. You might want to try doing it yourself sometime.

SC: Deal with MY argument, not Sitchins. I couldn’t give a monkey’s what Sitchin has to say. Deal with what I am arguing. But then, I can understand why it suits you to keep diverting the thread to Sitchin. A far easier target for you.

SC: No, you have it all backwards here. The question is not who was responsible for starting the hoax theory—the question is whether the glyphs in these chambers are genuine or not. THAT is the question and THAT is what consensus Egyptology has to deal with. It is not for alternative challengers to disprove these glyphs as fraudulent, it is for consensus Egyptology to prove they are genuine. So, where is the scientific proof? I am not interested in a zillion consensus Egyptologists all agreeing with each other that the glyphs look genuine—I am asking that you present hard, empirical evidence to prove their veracity. Where’s the evidence? Let’s see it.

SC: Actually, it’s not. For whereas before it was assumed it was impossible for Howard-Vyse to have perpetrated such a fraud, my intervention has shown (albeit speculatively) how this fraud COULD have been perpetrated, ergo, it was not at all impossible. The game has changed. And, as such, the onus is now squarely upon consensus Egyptology to prove—scientifically—that these inscriptions are contemporary with the pyramid. You will take evidence every time--so where is it? Show us your proof.

SC

Scott can you please list down very obvious and stark differences between the Great Pyramids and the other pyramids claimed to be it's contemporaries. Pointing out the differences in a step by step manner will be a better argument. I feel it will be very clear by the end of it,why Sitchin and others claim that the Great Pyramids are different and not built by the same AE who built the others.

[Harsh86_Patel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids

This link has pictures of a wide variety of Egyptian Pyramids. Starting with great pyramids. Please compare for yourself the other pyramids and the great pyramids, and think for yourself whether they are built by the same peoples.

Amenemhet's pyramid.

Pyramid of Meidum

Step pyramids of Djoser

Nuri main pyramid.

Please see the other half baked attempts of reproducing something as spectacular as the great pyramids.

The great pyramids. Notice the small ones in the front, they look very Ancient Egyptian like, but the great pyramids are something else.

[Harsh86_Patel]

So Vyse putting up graffiti, while entirely possible, is highly unlikely based on the evidence presented. Does that pretty much sums up this argument?

It is the contrary, looking at the stark differences between the Great Pyramids and the other egyptian pyramids and the fact that the Imperialist Britishers at that point of time were often found at fault for distorting history of foreign cultures for thier personal benefits,is enough circumstantial evidence fot the forgery.

You have to question why there is so little heiroglyphics in the great pyramids?, in all probabilities Vyse must have copied and byhearted Khufu's cartouche and forged it and since he didn't know jack squat of the AE language,he must have been incapable of forging more.

For a comparison see the heiroglyphics found in other AE pyramids and compare them with the scarcity of them in the Great Pyramids.

[Scott Creighton]

Or, perhaps more accurately phrased, "speculatively plausible".

.

SC: Whatever. The POINT is that before my intervention into this debate it had long been considered impossible for Howard-Vyse to have perpetrated such a fraud. Now it is not. It was perfectly possible or, if you prefer, "speculatively plausible". So that changes the game. I would now like to ask the Egypt-apologists to present the hard, empirical, scientific evidence that proves the provenance of these inscriptions are contemporary with the pyramid's construction. Let's see the evidence.

SC

Edited April 18, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

I think it's more accurate to say that Vyse's putting up graffiti in the form of Khufu's name, in an accurate yet previously unevidenced form known prior to more modern times, while technically possible is highly unlikely based on the evidence.

SC: Based on what evidence?

SC