Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid


kmt_sesh

Recommended Posts

Creighton cut and pasted this from another board (or from here to another board).

SC: It's actually from here.

MS: I'll consider Brewer's motives when I'm convinced there _was_ such a person. (From here)

So, now that Walter Allen has been established as a real person who knew of Humphries Brewer long before Sitchin, are you now prepared to consider his motives as you said you would?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Harte, would you have a link to confirm that...I couldnt find anything other than friends of Khufu;

edit you might not find one.....;

http://www.aeraweb.o...ram7_1_2004.pdf

You are correct, sir, I am mistaken. Going off a failing memory, I suppose, and not bothering to look it up.

The Menkaure gang I mentioned is (obviously) from Menkaure's pyramid.

Other gang names in Kuhfu's pyramid are translated as "Kuhfu is pure", Kuhfu is Bright," and "May the white crown of Kuhfu strengthen the sailing."

The last one likely refers to the use of barges to bring in the granite from Aswan and the white Tura limestone for the casing.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any evidence that Khufu (or probably more likely his charges) could have been exploring an already existing monument and left their mark behind to claim it or simply mark their progress within?

Could the graffiti simply be a low-tech way of saying "Khufu was here"!

I suspect tombs/monuments all around the world have been breached, excavated, and explored by non-Europeans for thousands of years.

Each current culture could then occupy and sometimes build on top of what was there previously.

Much like it appears (to me) that the sphinx head was re-worked into a more contemporary Egyptian style bust while the part buried under the sand was left alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any evidence that Khufu (or probably more likely his charges) could have been exploring an already existing monument and left their mark behind to claim it or simply mark their progress within?

Could the graffiti simply be a low-tech way of saying "Khufu was here"!

I suspect tombs/monuments all around the world have been breached, excavated, and explored by non-Europeans for thousands of years.

Each current culture could then occupy and sometimes build on top of what was there previously.

Much like it appears (to me) that the sphinx head was re-worked into a more contemporary Egyptian style bust while the part buried under the sand was left alone.

Not really since the relieving chambers were sealed during construction and access was only gained to them, once again, when Howard-Vyse used dynomite to do so. In short, they were never meant to be opened.

Also the C14 dates (taken at two different times) place the GP within the appropriate timeframe for Khufu's reign.

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paint on the walls also goes around corners of the blocks and down the cracks where it is not possible for someone to paint without unstacking the pyramid, painting on the blocks, and restacking the pyramid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some skeptical sources here and elsewhere have suggested that Sitchin made up the personage of Mr Walter Allen in order to create a false witness to the forgery claims in his books. Some further claim that Walter Allen was complicit in some way with Sitchin.

The article below (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 14th March, 1977) shows Mr Walter Allen pictured (right) with his daughter and granddaughter. The article explains how Walter Allen and his family have been tracing their family for many years and through many, many generations all the way back to Britain and Ireland. The article even briefly mentions Humphries Brewer as one of their descendents* (the descendent* that emigrated from England to set down roots in the USA).

Walter-Allen.jpg

The article (above) was published in 1977. As far as I can determine, Sitchin’s first mention of fraud in the Great Pyramid was published in 1986, "Forgery" in the Great Pyramid by Venture Inward [magazine of the Association for Research and Enlightenment and The Edgar Cayce Foundation], November/December 1986, pp. 33‑37. This is almost 10 years AFTER Walter Allen first mentions Humphries Brewer in his family ancestry. I think it is safe to place questions of complicity or conspiracy between the two firmly in the bin. Walter Allen claimed Humphries Brewer as a family ancestor long before he had any connection with Sitchin.

SC

(PS - Still trying to trace the original letters from Brewer).

Errata - 'Descedent(s)' should, of course, read 'ancestor(s)'.

SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC: It's actually from here.

What, your text as well as the article (as at GHMB)? I hope Google is happy with your use of their material.

I saw this three years ago. Thanks to Hermione for sending me the link. (We too can use Google.)

Something I wrote on alt.alien.visitors in 1993:

I’ll consider Brewer's motives when I’m convinced there _was_ such a person.

Thanks for confirming that you study my old posts. Some of the critique remains valid.

So, now that Walter Allen has been established as a real person who knew of Humphries Brewer long before Sitchin, are you now prepared to consider his motives as you said you would?

What do you mean, now? I’ve known this since 1996. This might have suggested as much:

I still want to check out this Humphries Brewer story. Can anyone supply details such as date and place of birth, date of death and place of burial? If there was such a person, it should be easy to confirm it. . . .

You really are slow on the uptake.

For the board in general: the grave of Humphries Brewer:

http://pictures.insa...C_6061.JPG.html

M.

Edited by mstower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any evidence that Khufu (or probably more likely his charges) could have been exploring an already existing monument and left their mark behind to claim it or simply mark their progress within?

Could the graffiti simply be a low-tech way of saying "Khufu was here"!

I suspect tombs/monuments all around the world have been breached, excavated, and explored by non-Europeans for thousands of years.

Each current culture could then occupy and sometimes build on top of what was there previously.

Much like it appears (to me) that the sphinx head was re-worked into a more contemporary Egyptian style bust while the part buried under the sand was left alone.

Some other posters have already responded but I'd like to elaborate.

Cormac mentioned the relieving chambers had been sealed upon completion, and that took place at least 4,500 years ago. Cormac also mentioned the carbon dating, which involved more than forty samples from the Great Pyramid and establishes beyond reasonable doubt that this monument was erected sometime around the middle of the third-millennium BCE (the monument might be around a century older than conventionally thought, so about 2600 BCE). This effectively removes outdated alternative notions that the Great Pyramid is many thousands of years older than anyone thinks.

It's also been stated that in some places in the relieving chambers, the graffiti disappears around and between colossal blocks of masonry. This means the graffiti had to have been painted onto the stones before their placement in the relieving chambers. The question raised in this discussion is, is this portion of the graffiti merely mason's marks or hieroglyphic phrases such as is evident in the easily viewable graffiti? To me that question is perhaps not terribly relevant because in two instances in the two highest chambers, Khufu's name in its cartouche descends down below the blocks of the floor. Obviously his name had to have been painted onto these blocks prior to assembly inside the chambers.

As for the Sphinx, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion because this monument is not very relevant here. But I will say that 4,500 years ago, the "part buried under the sand" was actually below the level of the bedrock. The quarrying operations for Khufu's pyramid (G1) first exposed the spot, and then what we see today transpired during the quarrying operations for Khafre's pyramid (G2). In other words, prior to Khufu, the only portion of the Sphinx visible to humans would've been the large knob of stone that became its head.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creighton,

I’ve found some evidence that someone called Queen Victoria existed.

Clearly this confirms the theory that Queen Victoria was an alien.

M.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, if nothing else, I have to give Scott props for resurrecting this old thread. If you go back to the beginning, you'll see I started it in January 2010 and it barely ran to two pages. Then Scott posted earlier this month. Now look at it. :w00t:

Subsequent investigations in this discussion have been most helpful, I have to say. For instance, I never doubted that Sitchin was wrong (of course) but had always wondered if he was misrepresenting facts—and now we know beyond a doubt that he was. He presented the same fraudulent information in at least three of his books of which I'm aware. We've also seen how Sitchin seriously misrepresented the nature of the evidence and how it exists in the archives of the British Museum, not to mention his misrepresentation of the so-called Brewer letters.

So it does indeed seem there is really no physical evidence for a hoax in the relieving chambers. There is not even any circumstantial evidence. The argument against Vyse has been shaved down to election fraud in his younger days when under the sway of his father and patron, and even in an actual court of law this would not be considered evidence (at least here in the U.S.). Basing the hoax myth on only this produces an exceedingly frail line of argument that simply cannot stand on its own, nor can it be taken seriously on its own.

I really do appreciate everyone making this a lively debate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, if nothing else, I have to give Scott props for resurrecting this old thread. If you go back to the beginning, you'll see I started it in January 2010 and it barely ran to two pages. Then Scott posted earlier this month. Now look at it. :w00t:

Subsequent investigations in this discussion have been most helpful, I have to say. For instance, I never doubted that Sitchin was wrong (of course) but had always wondered if he was misrepresenting facts—and now we know beyond a doubt that he was. He presented the same fraudulent information in at least three of his books of which I'm aware. We've also seen how Sitchin seriously misrepresented the nature of the evidence and how it exists in the archives of the British Museum, not to mention his misrepresentation of the so-called Brewer letters.

So it does indeed seem there is really no physical evidence for a hoax in the relieving chambers. There is not even any circumstantial evidence. The argument against Vyse has been shaved down to election fraud in his younger days when under the sway of his father and patron, and even in an actual court of law this would not be considered evidence (at least here in the U.S.). Basing the hoax myth on only this produces an exceedingly frail line of argument that simply cannot stand on its own, nor can it be taken seriously on its own.

I really do appreciate everyone making this a lively debate.

As somebody who believes in the good in men (yeh :devil: ) I tend to believe that most of this fringe intellectual diarrhea is owed to pure ignorance, which in itself is not objectionable, we are all ignorant depending on what subject we are talking about... what I find objectionable is that they keep up with the same claims despite added knowledge (latest when their constructs run off as what they are due to criticism of those knowledgeable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creighton,

I’ve found some evidence that someone called Queen Victoria existed.

Clearly this confirms the theory that Queen Victoria was an alien.

M.

Good for you, dear boy.

And Humphries Brewer's Obituary:

DBATH or HUMPHRIES BREWBR.—We copy,

by request, the following obituary notice from

the Wellsboro Herald:

"It is with a melancholy feeling that we

announce the death of Humphries Brewer.

We cannot suffer the occasion to pass without

passing some feeble tribute to the memory of

one who was endeared to almost every person

with whom he has ever been associated. His

sudden and untimely death has fallen with

crushing weight on the hearts of his family

and friends; as well as upon the business

public in this county. The place he occupied

is now a blank. The commanding position

to which he had carved his way, will long

wait for a claimant. Though not an old man

be had earned a name for business ability,

and enjoyed a reputation amongst the many

persons with whom he had been associated

that few persons have been fortunate enough

to win. win.

Humphries Brewer was born in the Parish

of Box, Wiltshire, England ; and died on the

25th day of December last, aged 50 years, 9

months and 27 days.

The writer of this article is not sufficiently

acquainted with the earlier parts of his life to

give a correct history of it. Enough, however,

is known of it to state that he had the advantages

of early training; that he was thoroughly

educated in all the higher branches of

mathematics; and that he was an accomplished

geologist before be came to this country.

He had also traveled through Egypt and the

Holy Land, and his mind was well stored

with an accurate knowledge of the history of

that portion of the Old World.

He emigrated

to this country some twenty years ago ; since

which time he has resided at Blossburg and

Fall Brook. His knowledge of geology led

him into this locality, and he begun to make

early examinations into the coal deposits in

and about Blossburg. The summers of 1857

and 1853 were mostly spent by him and Mr.

D. S. Magee is making explorations upon the

land where Fall Brook now stands. The location

of the first drift; the plan of the Rail

road from Blossburg to Fall Brook; the construction

of the Schntes, platforms and other

coal fixtures were all the fruits of his energy

and will. In fact Fall Brook with its immense

interest has all grown up under his

nurture and care ; not a blow has been struck,

not an improvement made except under his

direction. In less than ten years he has

changed it from a barren and rugged wilderness

to a place of immense business and great

productive wealth. Hundreds of men are

constantly there. It has opened one of the

best markets in the county, and disbursed

thousands of dollars monthly, among the people.

Mr. Brewer united with his other qualities

that of an accomplished engineer. In the

intricate and difficult business of the mining

and railroad interests this was a most

valuable qualification. He was also an ingenious

mechanic, and has left behind as an evidence

of it many valuable inventions at Fall

Brook. In his business character we find

that assemblage of virtues which made him

so invaluable. He possessed what is rarely

found in business men, in combination, clear

perception. great energy, and great caution.

Blessed With an almost instinctive perception

of character, he read men at a glance.

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

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it does indeed seem there is really no physical evidence for a hoax in the relieving chambers. There is not even any circumstantial evidence. The argument against Vyse has been shaved down to election fraud in his younger days when under the sway of his father and patron, and even in an actual court of law this would not be considered evidence (at least here in the U.S.). Basing the hoax myth on only this produces an exceedingly frail line of argument that simply cannot stand on its own, nor can it be taken seriously on its own.

Yet they continue as if nothing has changed. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really since the relieving chambers were sealed during construction and access was only gained to them, once again, when Howard-Vyse used dynomite to do so. In short, they were never meant to be opened.

Also the C14 dates (taken at two different times) place the GP within the appropriate timeframe for Khufu's reign.

This is untrue.

There was a sealed passage from the top of the south end of the so called grand gallery

to the relieving chambers. There was evidence inside these chambers that people had been

there after the pyramid was constructed and there are the insect carcasses in the chambers.

This passage was found because its access could be seen and Vyse merely cleared it.

I've told you this previously.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is untrue.

There was a sealed passage from the top of the south end of the so called grand gallery

to the relieving chambers. There was evidence inside these chambers that people had been

there after the pyramid was constructed and there are the insect carcasses in the chambers.

This passage was found because its access could be seen and Vyse merely cleared it.

I've told you this previously.

What part of "sealed" do you not understand?

You also don't pay attention to what's been posted before, do you?. In Vyse's journal he states that the original belief that the black dust on the floor of the relieving chambers, believed to have been insect detritus, appears to have in fact been decayed stone remains.

Edit to add Vyse's description itself:

post-74391-0-61599500-1367005186_thumb.j

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is untrue.

There was a sealed passage from the top of the south end of the so called grand gallery

to the relieving chambers. There was evidence inside these chambers that people had been

there after the pyramid was constructed and there are the insect carcasses in the chambers.

This passage was found because its access could be seen and Vyse merely cleared it.

I've told you this previously.

No, Vyse created this passage with blasting powder—just as he made passageways into each succeeding chamber.

Due to Davison's Chamber (found the previous century) Vyse only suspected there might be more. All he did was stick a reed through a tiny crack above Davison's Chamber, and the reed met with no resistance. That's when Vyse progressed to blasting his way up.

"Sealed" to us humans does not mean "sealed" to all forms of life. Even a tiny crack will admit all sorts of insects and perhaps even vermin and bats. It's always possible the thick debris on the floor of each chamber contained some small percentage of insect carcasses, but a thick coating of insect carcasses in each chamber? Not realistic. Most of it was mineral debris.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder... if it was "sealed" originally from the exterior side, could it have been previously breached and "re-sealed"? Although, it sounds like there isn't much evidence for that beyond the graffitti and carbon dating materials to the old kingdom.

Anyway - since Vyse was blasting away up there a lot of evidence may never be recovered.

I personally like the cartouche running behind the floor blocks as evidence for Khufu's participation better than the C-14 dating.

It seems a weak argument to me that because a piece of material was found in a certain place - that place was built at precisely that time.

I don't think it's likely that Vyse forged this information. What did he have to gain by a hoax making the pyramid Khufu's tomb - he was already opening up previously undiscovered areas.

I find much more likely that we are constructing the story with only a handful original words. We will never know the whole story. I personally like the mystery in that.

I find this topic very interesting and you all have amassed a lot of information. If anything - you have to admire Sitchin for coming out with compelling ideas that's inspired so much research!

Thanks all for a great discussion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder... if it was "sealed" originally from the exterior side, could it have been previously breached and "re-sealed"? Although, it sounds like there isn't much evidence for that beyond the graffitti and carbon dating materials to the old kingdom.

Anyway - since Vyse was blasting away up there a lot of evidence may never be recovered.

I personally like the cartouche running behind the floor blocks as evidence for Khufu's participation better than the C-14 dating.

It seems a weak argument to me that because a piece of material was found in a certain place - that place was built at precisely that time.

I don't think it's likely that Vyse forged this information. What did he have to gain by a hoax making the pyramid Khufu's tomb - he was already opening up previously undiscovered areas.

I find much more likely that we are constructing the story with only a handful original words. We will never know the whole story. I personally like the mystery in that.

I find this topic very interesting and you all have amassed a lot of information. If anything - you have to admire Sitchin for coming out with compelling ideas that's inspired so much research!

Thanks all for a great discussion!

Not without taking apart most of the construction... but then again maybe this Mr Khufu did exactly that, forged the graffiti and then put the whole thing back together again just to get some of the past glory... oh wait, he was not able to do that as he could not move the blocks over the non-existing ramp...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I find this topic very interesting and you all have amassed a lot of information. If anything - you have to admire Sitchin for coming out with compelling ideas that's inspired so much research!

Thanks all for a great discussion!

I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion, foghum. However, speaking for myself, I cannot see Zecharia Sitchin as someone to admire. You can see the work it takes to reveal and expose his frauds. That much is interesting, yes, but it goes to show how seriously half-baked, scheming fringe writers muddle and distort the truth of things.

As for possible resealing, no, it's clear this did not happen. It happened in many other tombs, and such damage was often repaired by necropolis workmen. Obviously a forced passage cannot be perfectly resealed with stones, so the ancient workmen used mortar and plaster to do this. Even millennia later the effect is easy to spot. Think of the outer door to KV62, the tomb of Tutankhamun. Two ancient patch jobs revealed to Carter and his team that the tomb had been entered by thieves at least a couple of times in ancient history.

Edited by kmt_sesh
Additional comments.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder... if it was "sealed" originally from the exterior side, could it have been previously breached and "re-sealed"? Although, it sounds like there isn't much evidence for that beyond the graffitti and carbon dating materials to the old kingdom.

Anyway - since Vyse was blasting away up there a lot of evidence may never be recovered.

A tunnel existed here.

It was filled with stone from the main quarry.

Vyse then dynamited the stone out of the tunnel.

Had there been no tunnel here Vyse wouldn't have known where to blast.

Blasting of a filled tunnel is not the same thing as the creation of a tunnel.

Blasting a tunnel into a masonry structure is probably impossible but then Vyse was an expert on blasting.

I was not aware until just a few days ago that there was any doubt about the composition of the black "residue". It speaks to not only the paucity of evidence but the abysmal quality of existing evidence caused at least in part by modern day Egyptologists. A simple magnifying glass would answer this question positively. It seems the difficult is impossible and the simple is highly unlikely.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tunnel existed here.

It was filled with stone from the main quarry.

Vyse then dynamited the stone out of the tunnel.

Any source for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tunnel existed here.

It was filled with stone from the main quarry.

Vyse then dynamited the stone out of the tunnel.

Had there been no tunnel here Vyse wouldn't have known where to blast.

Blasting of a filled tunnel is not the same thing as the creation of a tunnel.

Blasting a tunnel into a masonry structure is probably impossible but then Vyse was an expert on blasting.

This has already been addressed. See my last reply to you (Post 366). There was no tunnel prior to Vyse's blasting operations. If you disagree, please cite your source so we can examine it. If you have no source, please do not make things up.

I was not aware until just a few days ago that there was any doubt about the composition of the black "residue". It speaks to not only the paucity of evidence but the abysmal quality of existing evidence caused at least in part by modern day Egyptologists. A simple magnifying glass would answer this question positively. It seems the difficult is impossible and the simple is highly unlikely.

Ultimately the composition of the debris is irrelevant. Whether it was insect detritus, decayed mineral debris, an excess of bat crap, ancient discarded candy wrappers, or a combination thereof, it doesn't matter. Humans could not have entered the upper chambers since 2500 BCE.

In any case, read Vyse's journal. He sent samples of the debris to two different agencies to examine it. The mere fact that the debris was so dense and coated every observable surface in each chamber only reinforces the fact that no one had been in there in millennia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tunnel existed here.

It was filled with stone from the main quarry.

Vyse then dynamited the stone out of the tunnel.

Had there been no tunnel here Vyse wouldn't have known where to blast.

Blasting of a filled tunnel is not the same thing as the creation of a tunnel.

Blasting a tunnel into a masonry structure is probably impossible but then Vyse was an expert on blasting.

I was not aware until just a few days ago that there was any doubt about the composition of the black "residue". It speaks to not only the paucity of evidence but the abysmal quality of existing evidence caused at least in part by modern day Egyptologists. A simple magnifying glass would answer this question positively. It seems the difficult is impossible and the simple is highly unlikely.

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.

http://web.archive.o...mids/r18_93.gif

I do find it interesting that the various tunnels dug around the Kings Chamber and Queens chamber don't show up on most maps of the interior of the GP.

Further reading seems to indicate that Vyse blasted up from where he entered the first relieving chamber.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
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.

http://web.archive.o...mids/r18_93.gif

Even so, it does not explain graffiti extending to places where it had to be made BEFORE putting the slab into place as there is no place left to do it once the slab was there. Which is precisely what convinced Hancock that Sitchin was talking boolcrappy.

Edited by questionmark
  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.