Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid

[cladking]

Creighton,

Your entire approach to this issue is ad hominem. You can’t get Vyse on the evidence, so you attack his character.

And you’re complaining that I say unkind things about you?

You should learn what words mean before you use them.

To your mind then, suggesting that orthodoxy is partially based on chicanery is ad hominem.

...interesting perspective. ...common, though interesting nonetheless.

[Irna]

The ink/paint needs to be more than that ... this is a vertical wall and rough surface.

There is a strong possibility that the marks were not painted inside the chamber, but rather in the quarry; that would explain why the marks are often upside down.

If lime stone ... even the paints of today don't work so well on damp but powdery and moisture resistant surfaces.

I got tired of trying to find out what stone is where nowadays, so much contradictory info out there on the webs, maybe you'll have better luck finding out what kind of stone the graffiti is painted on.

This cartouche was painted on the roof of Campbell's chamber, which is made of limestone slabs.

My thoughts here is the same as the difficulties faced by the Researchers in China, they know things were done using brushes but no 'evidence' of brushes were found.

Some examples of paintbrushes found in Egypt:

http://www.britishmu...asset_id=276942

The writing indicates someone who is a scribe, at least someone used to writing, not many reasons to write in those days except to copy 'holy' or revered testaments.

One of the puzzling thing here to me is, in all cultures of old, a 'name' is never to be written by any one else but the bearer more so if a ruler/king and I wonder if this applies to pharaohs too.. Nowadays we still don't address monarchs or rulers by name, so whoever wrote that graffiti either holds a very high station/status or is Khufu himself.

But we have numerous examples of such quarry marks elsewhere than in the GP. Each work gang had a name using the name of the king they worked for ("Friends of Khufu gang" for instance).

Edited April 24, 2013 by Irna

[mstower]

SC: He was a big boy. He was in the military. I rather doubt he would be so easily pushed around and especially so given that he would have known that indulging in such practices was illegal and he could have gone to jail for it.

Cumberland was a bigger boy. He was in the military with a higher rank. He also had the small additional advantage of being royalty.

Vyse (the younger) was a 22-year-old junior officer in Cumberland’s regiment (on half pay, but that was the rank he held).

His father, General Richard Vyse, was comptroller to Cumberland’s household.

Surviving correspondence between Cumberland and General Vyse shows that Cumberland took a close fatherly interest in young Richard William Howard and his education. He was virtually in loco parentis.

But you, Simon Pure, would have resisted the pressure.

M.

[mstower]

To your mind then, suggesting that orthodoxy is partially based on chicanery is ad hominem.

My remark was specific. Creighton’s attack on Vyse is ad hominem. It’s an attempt to discredit Vyse’s discoveries by damning his character (on entirely inadequate grounds).

M.

Edited April 24, 2013 by mstower

[mstower]

Mr. Stower, thank you for entering the debate and contributing such useful material. You have helped to resolve much of this unnecessary fuss.

It just goes to show the damage Zecharia Sitchin has caused, even though he's been dead for several years now: the same nonsense continues to be perpetuated.

You are welcome.

For some, Sitchin’s forgery narrative has become paradigmatic in the Kuhnian sense: it defines how they see the issue.

What’s funny or sad (depending on how such things strike you) is that some of these people imagine themselve to be rigorously independent in their thinking.

M.

[SHaYap]

There is a strong possibility that the marks were not painted inside the chamber, but rather in the quarry; that would explain why the marks are often upside down.

Thanks, I never knew that about this particular mark, that would make sense of a lot of things.

This cartouche was painted on the roof of Campbell's chamber, which is made of limestone slabs.

Any idea of the paint or ink used ?

Some examples of paintbrushes found in Egypt:

http://www.britishmu...asset_id=276942

Not quite the kind of functionality I had in mind but the bottom one looks interesting, if only the dimensions were listed ...

looks a bit big/thick to be writing scripts with though

But we have numerous examples of such quarry marks elsewhere than in the GP. Each work gang had a name using the name of the king they worked for ("Friends of Khufu gang" for instance).

I am aware of that, which makes this 'Khufu' character all the more strange, where's the gangs of 'Menkaure, of Khafre' ?

What does 'Friends" here means anyway ?

if I were to go around introducing myself as "Friend" of the Elizabeth, you know> the Queen of England ?

That sounds strangely strange even today ... in those days I've read that one is not even allowed to look at a Pharaoh

By the way I have no dog in this Colonel hoax or not fight, I just don't believe the gizapolis was built and completed in the time attributed by orthodox opinions.

I don't care if Khufu built it or won it at a raffle or even stole it,

I'm more interested on 'how' and 'why'

Anthropologically speaking in a way,

I don't just see naked Emperor with invisible robes, I am being made to 'see' the invisible robes too

[mstower]

SC: Just as I thought.

SC

Translation: Just as you (Creighton) failed to think.

As expected:

Er - let me make this perfectly clear to you so that there is no misunderstanding. I know precisely ZILCH about AE script and make no pretensions otherwise! I probably never will study it in any detail. It's just not my field of interest. . . .

M.

Edited April 24, 2013 by mstower

[mstower]

I am aware of that, which makes this 'Khufu' character all the more strange, where's the gangs of 'Menkaure, of Khafre' ?

What does 'Friends" here means anyway ?

Gangs of Menkaure:

http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20library/reisner_gn_books/mycerinus/plan_11to12.pdf

The word translated as “Friends” is smrw, roughly “semeru”, plural of smr. It’s a word otherwise used as the title of a courtier.

Gang names of this form are known for Khufu, Menkaure, Neuserre and another pharaoh whose name is problematic.

M.

[SHaYap]

Gangs of Menkaure:

http://www.gizapyram...plan_11to12.pdf

The word translated as “Friends” is smrw, roughly “semeru”, plural of smr. It’s a word otherwise used as the title of a courtier.

Gang names of this form are known for Khufu, Menkaure, Neuserre and another pharaoh whose name is problematic.

M.

Thanks ... you caught me before I had a chance to edit ... I remembered vaguely about gangs missing Khafre or Menkaure, apologies.

I don;t think i have that pdf, much appreciation

I really should cut down on reading on too many topics at once

I have this funny thoughts of someone finding an ancient quarry filled with graffiti of with nature such as :

"ptah tep sleeps with whores" or "ahum ka stinks of bad fish"

~edit : wrong pdf

Edited April 24, 2013 by third_eye

[Irna]

Any idea of the paint or ink used ?

Red ochre

See about the pigments used in Egypt: "Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology" by Nicholson and Shaw, 2000. Part of the chapter 4 "Painting materials" is available online: http://books.google.fr/books?id=Vj7A9jJrZP0C&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false

[SHaYap]

Red ochre

See about the pigments used in Egypt: "Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology" by Nicholson and Shaw, 2000. Part of the chapter 4 "Painting materials" is available online: http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Thank you .... but that chapter was all techno babble to one untrained in the arts of science ... I failed miserably

From what I did make sense of is the painting material tested were paints on decorative items or of a decorative nature (temple walls)

I will guess that the marks on the roof of Campbell's chamber is not among those

[Irna]

I will guess that the marks on the roof of Campbell's chamber is not among those

No, sorry, I should have mentioned that it was not about the quarry marks; it was just to have an idea of the variety of mineral pigments used by the AE.

[+DieChecker]

No one can refute the fact that a bunch of Gold DIggers and Fame seekers could have got together and painted the cartouches's on the walls.

Any reason that the same logic could not be applied to the Brewer letters (If they even existed)?

[stereologist]

No one can refute the fact that a bunch of Gold DIggers and Fame seekers could have got together and painted the cartouches's on the walls.

That's simply not possible. The writing goes around corners. That leads into thin cracks where it is not possible to paint. Unless gold diggers and fame seekers can become as thin as Flat Stanley.

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

[Merc14]

That's simply not possible. The writing goes around corners. That leads into thin cracks where it is not possible to paint. Unless gold diggers and fame seekers can become as thin as Flat Stanley.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Flat_Stanley

Possibly aliens can accomplish this since that is about all that is left for them to argue.

edit: Oh never mind, I forgot that we will simply cycle back to the first Sitchin post and start all over again.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Merc14

[kmt_sesh]

It seems funny but there are two parts to Sitchin's claim regarding this issue.

1st claim: that Vyse had forged the glyphs. (which i believe and there is lot of circumstantial evidence to support it, not requiring any testimonies from sitchin)

2nd claim: the cartouche reads Ra-U- Fu and not Kh-U-Fu inorder to support the theory he had.The second claim is where the error is exposed and was recently clarified on this forum topic.

It is also important for us to question Sitchin's motives for falsely/incorrectly (we don't know yet) claiming that the Hill document actually read Ra-u-FU and not Kh-u-fu....since he had claimed that they were forgeries how would it make any difference to him.Maybe he was using it as evidence of the forgery,because he had no other empirical proof of the same.

Perhaps you missed a bunch of recent posts, Harsh. This concerns Sitchin's presentation of lineart in his books: it was falsified. This is conclusive. Go back and especially read the posts about this by Scott, mstower, and cormac. The scans of Hill's transcriptions in the archives of the British Museum clearly show that all of the cartouches contain at least two and sometimes three striations.

Sitchin claims to have viewed the originals himself in the British Museum, before publishing his books, which means one of two obvious things: either Sitchin never actually saw the originals and lied about it, or he saw the originals and deliberately falsified the transcription from Campbell's Chamber. In either case it shows that Sitchin was a fraud (and still is and will always be, in so far as his regrettable books continue to be published).

There is no wiggle room on this, so it would be completely nonsensical to go on supporting Sitchin on this matter.

None of the Aa1 glyphs (the "sieve") contain a blob or dot at center, so the sun disk glyph (N5) is not at all present in any of the cartouches. This is the substance of Sitchin's fraud. One Aa1 glyph shows at least two striations in which the paint appears to have run together, and this is the one Sitchin misrepresented in his books. But as the British Museum's archives show, Sitchin's version is not how the original looks.

Not that it even matters, in reality. The Aa1 glyph doesn't necessarily require striations to be read properly with the "kh" sound value. Check the graphical chart in my OP for real examples of variations of the Aa1 glyph down through the pharaonic period.

There was never a king named either Raufu or Ufura. Ancient Egyptian names were not meaningless collections of sounds. They expressed a clear concept or phrase, as do both Khnum-Khuf and Khufu. Neither Raufu nor Ufura say anything in the ancient language. You are better off turning to a recognized expert in the ancient language than to a pretender like Sitchin, who knew next to nothing about ancient Egyptian scripts—which he amply demonstrated in his own publications.

Let it go. You're trying to support a guy who actually tried to make people believe in ancient alien intervention, which utterly lacks common sense and critical thinking on the face of it.

[kmt_sesh]

Vyses version

I dont buy the ink blot assumtpion, as such assumptions can be used to justify anything.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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?

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?

http://www.rickricha...gypt/Egypt6.htm

The second point I am least bothered about, rest of them are really interesting and here to stay. Whether Sitchin said it or not.

I can't remember if it was in this discussion or another, Harsh, but you posted this same list fairly recently. I took the time to dissect each one, as I recall, and point out the faulty reasoning with each. Repeating the same mistakes over and over will not correct the mistakes. Trusting in the half-baked web page of an uninformed person will not aid you in your quest. Every single one of the above points represents flawed thinking, a lack of understanding of the most basic fundamentals of Egyptology, and the same tired repetition of fringe mistakes.

If you or another poster would like me to address each point again, I will do so. I don't have time tonight, and to be honest I don't like repeating myself so chronically, but I am open to it.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Perhaps you missed a bunch of recent posts, Harsh. This concerns Sitchin's presentation of lineart in his books: it was falsified. This is conclusive. Go back and especially read the posts about this by Scott, mstower, and cormac. The scans of Hill's transcriptions in the archives of the British Museum clearly show that all of the cartouches contain at least two and sometimes three striations.

Sitchin claims to have viewed the originals himself in the British Museum, before publishing his books, which means one of two obvious things: either Sitchin never actually saw the originals and lied about it, or he saw the originals and deliberately falsified the transcription from Campbell's Chamber. In either case it shows that Sitchin was a fraud (and still is and will always be, in so far as his regrettable books continue to be published).

There is no wiggle room on this, so it would be completely nonsensical to go on supporting Sitchin on this matter.

None of the Aa1 glyphs (the "sieve") contain a blob or dot at center, so the sun disk glyph (N5) is not at all present in any of the cartouches. This is the substance of Sitchin's fraud. One Aa1 glyph shows at least two striations in which the paint appears to have run together, and this is the one Sitchin misrepresented in his books. But as the British Museum's archives show, Sitchin's version is not how the original looks.

Not that it even matters, in reality. The Aa1 glyph doesn't necessarily require striations to be read properly with the "kh" sound value. Check the graphical chart in my OP for real examples of variations of the Aa1 glyph down through the pharaonic period.

There was never a king named either Raufu or Ufura. Ancient Egyptian names were not meaningless collections of sounds. They expressed a clear concept or phrase, as do both Khnum-Khuf and Khufu. Neither Raufu nor Ufura say anything in the ancient language. You are better off turning to a recognized expert in the ancient language than to a pretender like Sitchin, who knew next to nothing about ancient Egyptian scripts—which he amply demonstrated in his own publications.

Let it go. You're trying to support a guy who actually tried to make people believe in ancient alien intervention, which utterly lacks common sense and critical thinking on the face of it.

Again you and otheres are trying to link the Vyse Forgery with what Sitchin said about Hill fascimile.

Sitchin may have been wrong about his claims of hill fascimile but it doesn't automatically absolve Vyse.

The journal entry of VYSE clearly shows a round disc with a blob in the centre. The three lines observed on the cartouche in the pyramid could have been a later restoration.

The red ochre paint is rather easily available.

[Harsh86_Patel]

[/font][/b][/size][/color]

The fact that the forms of Kuhfu's names, as acknowledged by various interested parties, has changed over the years means nothing in this context. This "various spellings" statement is not true. The fact is, different people have verbalized the phonetics of the name in different ways. Ever heard of Cheops?

This is in fact not true. At one time, it was thought to be so. Only a year or two after Vyse's discovery it was found to be untrue.

Pure stupidity. Especially the part about "common sense" and "think about it." There were no funerary texts at the time.

Since when does Egyptological knowledge equate with "street smarts" or "common sense?" To whom are the minutiae of daily 4th dynasty life "common?"

No 4th dynasty tomb was decorated in that way.

Yet the first people to enter the Great Pyramid, working under caliph Al Mamoun, described not one, but several mummies. AND loads of gold.

See above about decorations.

They may have been the only ones found at the time the above was written. However, since then, glyphs have been found in other, completely inaccesible, places in the GP, as noted by the illustrious kmt_sesh in a previous post.

It should be noted that, wherever anyone has looked for such glyphs, they have been found. All over Giza and elswhere; at ancient Egyptian pyramid sites.

Many times I've linked to a pic of the pertinant page of Vyse's own journal that proves that the above is simply a lie. Vyse reports finding the crosshatches, which his own notebook indicates he did not expect to see in that glyph. All previously explained a few posts back by kmt_sesh, again.

There is not, and will never be, any evidence at any ancient site that archaeologists can use to "prove" anything. Evidence merely suggests. The evidence at Giza suggests the GP was Khufu's tomb.

"Proof" is a mathematical concept and doesn't even exist in the imperfect world.

Just arguing against a Devil's Advocate.

Harte

Phonetics is very important, sometimes it is the only thing that seperates the names of two different people, i had pointed this out to sesh that since we are only sure of the consonants (from the rossetta stone) when it comes to AE and not of the vowels, sometime the same consonant's can represent two different words. I also spoke of the possibility of there being a more ancient king called "Khu-aU-Fi" who is being currently confused with "Kh-u-fu" a completely different person.

My point was that if you change the Vowels it could be an entirely different name and person.

For example "Hr" which is usually read as "HoRuS" can actually also be "HaRiS"

There are no decorations of any sort on the so called sarcophagus.

There are no heiroglyphics in the so called tomb rooms,commemorating the Great king Khufu and his burial.

There was no mummy found, even past claims of people entering the great pyramid, none reported any heiroglyphics or mummies or artifacts, until Vyse blasted the chambers.

The great pyraamid has both ascending and descending chambers whereas other pyramids don't, maybe because one of the passages was blocked with a granite plug, and the other AE pyramid builders never noticed it and hence never copied it in their smaller versions of the great pyramid.

There is no other evidence regarding the great pyramid that links it with Khufu other then an easily available red ochre paint cartouche of Khufu that could have easily been forged or manipulated.

In an imperfect world everything doesn't fit in with what egyptologists and Zahi Hawass want it to be.

Regarding al mammun and the other claimants who claimed to have broken in the great pyramid, a very interesting link:

http://blogs.smithso...-great-pyramid/

Excerpts:

"s it possible, though, that the Arab accounts that Egyptologists depend on so unquestioningly may not be all they seem? Some elements ring true—for instance, it has been pointed out that later visitors to the Great Pyramid were frequently plagued by giant bats, which made their roosting places deep in its interior; if Ma’mun’s men did not encounter them, that might suggest no prior entry. But other aspects of these early accounts are far less credible. Read in the original, the Arab histories paint a confused and contradictory picture of the pyramids; most were composed several centuries after Ma’mun’s time, and none so much as mentions the vital date–820 A.D.— so confidently stated in every Western work published since the 1860s. Indeed, the reliability of all these modern accounts is called into question by the fact that the chronology of Ma’mun’s reign makes it clear he spent 820 in his capital, Baghdad. The caliph visited Cairo only once, in 832. If he did force entry into the Great Pyramid, it must have been in that year.

How can the Egyptologists have got such a simple thing wrong? Almost certainly, the answer is that those who spend their lives studying ancient Egypt have no reason to know much about medieval Muslim history. But this means they do not realize that the Arab chronicles they cite are collections of legends and traditions needing interpretation. Indeed, the earliest, written by the generally reliable al-Mas’udi and dating to no earlier than c. 950, does not even mention Ma’mun as the caliph who visited Giza. Al-Mas’udi attributes the breaching of the pyramid to Ma’mun’s father, Haroun al-Rashid, a ruler best remembered as the caliph of the Thousand and One Nights—and he appears in a distinctly fabulous context. When, the chronicler writes, after weeks of labor Haroun’s men finally forced their way in, they:"

"Nothing in either of these accounts seems implausible, and the Great Pyramid does indeed bear the scar of a narrow passagethat has been hacked into its limestone and which is generally supposed to have been excavated by Ma’mun. The forced passage is located fairly logically, too, right in the middle of the north face, a little below and a little to the right of the real (but then concealed) entrance, which the cunning Egyptians of Khufu’s day had placed 24 feet off center in an attempt to out-think would-be tomb robbers. Yet the fact remains that the Arab versions were written 400 to 500 years after Ma’mun’s time; to expect them to be accurate summaries of what took place in the ninth century is the equivalent of asking today’s casual visitor to Virginia to come up with a credible account of the lost colony of Roanoke. And on top of that, neither Abd al-Latif nor Ibn Battuta says anything about how Ma’mun decided where to dig, or mentions the story of the falling capstone guiding the exhausted tunnelers."

Read more: http://blogs.smithso.../#ixzz2RV8YMR4N

Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Read more: http://blogs.smithso.../#ixzz2RV8HJi64

Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Edited April 25, 2013 by Harsh86_Patel

[Harsh86_Patel]

I can't remember if it was in this discussion or another, Harsh, but you posted this same list fairly recently. I took the time to dissect each one, as I recall, and point out the faulty reasoning with each. Repeating the same mistakes over and over will not correct the mistakes. Trusting in the half-baked web page of an uninformed person will not aid you in your quest. Every single one of the above points represents flawed thinking, a lack of understanding of the most basic fundamentals of Egyptology, and the same tired repetition of fringe mistakes.

If you or another poster would like me to address each point again, I will do so. I don't have time tonight, and to be honest I don't like repeating myself so chronically, but I am open to it.

Yes i would like you to address each point. I discontinued after posting this as Scott and you were at it, though i had warned scott that the path he was being lead into i.e depending only on Hill And Vyse's version of the cartouche was not the right approach to argue this topic.He ended up overemphasizing what Sitchin had to say about the "Hill Fascimile" and drifted from the core issue, which is the "Vyse Forgery". After being shown proof to the contrary he withdrew and all of you thought that since Sitchin may have made a mistake/lied about the Hill fascimile means Vyse had not forged the Khufu Cartouche,which is not a logical conclusion.

This is what vyse drew:

This is what it actually is:

Why did Vyse miss out this obvious difference, maybe he practiced drawing the cartouche in his journal first and then copied it on the wall making the correction for Kh instead of Ra.

Or maybe he copied the cartouche from elsewhere and a got a more accurate person to do the forgery.

Maybe he copied the cartouche right, i.e "it was actually Ra-u-fu" which was later manipulated to read "Khufu"

[jules99]

Hi; I was just reading up on a Wiki reference and came across this snippet;

"Just as amazing as the chambers were Vyse's discovery of numerous graffiti in the chambers, in red paint, dating from the time the pyramids were built. Along with lines, markers and directional notations were work gangs names, including cartouches of several Pharaohs"

This surely has to be an error, why would there be the "cartouches of several pharaohs" in the GP ? can a knowledgeable poster refute this please? There is so very little information on the workers graffiti available.....Thanks

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

Edited April 25, 2013 by jules99

[Harsh86_Patel]

Also the surprising part is that the wall on which the cartouche is found is not even smoothened.It is very difficult to digest the people who built the great pyramids in a such a meticulous manner would be so careless and crude in paiting the supposed patron 'Khufu''s cartouche on the walls.

I don't know why they would do so. Build such a grand structure as a tomb for 'Khufu' and be so carless and crude in depicting the same with the cartouche.

[mstower]

Hi; I was just reading up on a Wiki reference and came across this snippet;

"Just as amazing as the chambers were Vyse's discovery of numerous graffiti in the chambers, in red paint, dating from the time the pyramids were built. Along with lines, markers and directional notations were work gangs names, including cartouches of several Pharaohs"

This surely has to be an error, why would there be the "cartouches of several pharaohs" in the GP ? can a knowledgeable poster refute this please? There is so very little information on the workers graffiti available.....Thanks

http://en.wikipedia....iam_Howard_Vyse

There goes Wikipedia again.

Several examples of the cartouche name Xnmw xwfw, Khnum-khufu. One example of the cartouche name xwfw, Khufu.

Several example of a non-cartouche name, Hr MDdw, Hor Medjedu, the Horus name of Khufu.

All of these are names of Khufu.

M.

[mstower]

This is what vyse drew:

You need to pay closer attention to the replies.

First of all, Vyse did not draw this. A lithographer working for the company of Day and Haghe drew this, based on a drawing by Perring.

It appears as a detail in a lithograph in Vyse’s published work, Operations Carried On at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837.

Here are some more adequate images of the same thing. The first two I’ve already posted.

Here’s a better one. Please note that copyright in this image remains with Jon Bodsworth:

Note the scale. This is a tiny detail in a scale drawing, and you are comparing it with the full-sized original.

Please don’t post this Richards material again.

M.

[Scott Creighton]

Yes i would like you to address each point. I discontinued after posting this as Scott and you were at it, though i had warned scott that the path he was being lead into i.e depending only on Hill And Vyse's version of the cartouche was not the right approach to argue this topic.He ended up overemphasizing what Sitchin had to say about the "Hill Fascimile" and drifted from the core issue, which is the "Vyse Forgery". After being shown proof to the contrary he withdrew and all of you thought that since Sitchin may have made a mistake/lied about the Hill fascimile means Vyse had not forged the Khufu Cartouche,which is not a logical conclusion.

This is what vyse drew:

This is what it actually is:

Why did Vyse miss out this obvious difference, maybe he practiced drawing the cartouche in his journal first and then copied it on the wall making the correction for Kh instead of Ra.

Or maybe he copied the cartouche from elsewhere and a got a more accurate person to do the forgery.

Maybe he copied the cartouche right, i.e "it was actually Ra-u-fu" which was later manipulated to read "Khufu"

Hi Harsh,

Here is a link to Frank Doernenburg's site showing the Howard-Vyse page in hi-res where you can clearly observe three distinct lines. I had an issue with this myself a number of years ago since the low-res version of this drawing on Frank D's site does not look like the disc in Stadelmann's photo. As a result of that discussion, FD placed a link to the hi-res image on his site (see below).

http://doernenburg.a...Journal_lrg.jpg

Given the evidence of Hill's drawings from the British Museum, I think we have little option but to dismiss Sitchin as an unreliable witness. This does not, however, mean that the inscriptions in the chamber are authentic. Absolutely not! That question is still very much alive and contentious as it ever was, especially in light of Howard-Vyse's dubious moral character. And I suppose if we have to ditch Sitchin's writings as a result of his lack of a moral compass, I see little reason not to consider Howard-Vyse's writings in the same light. The debate goes on.

SC

Edited April 25, 2013 by Scott Creighton