Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid

[Harsh86_Patel]

Well done kmt_sesh, you explained a very arcane and complex subject to those of us with little knowledge of it. You then detailed the flaws in Sitchin's very popular theories and sealed the case with the Graham Hancock's retraction. Thanks for the lesson sir.

This was also a part of Graham's retraction:

• This is not a sudden conversion. Although I was still open to the erroneous forgery theory while Keeper/Message was being written, I was also very much open to the orthodox theory that the Giza pyramids were Fourth Dynasty work - irrespective of the provenance of the quarry marks. The central thesis of Keeper/Message -- that the Giza monuments were built to commemorate the sky of 10,500 BC -- does not require us to conclude that all the monuments were necessarily built in that epoch. On the contrary I wrote in Keeper/Message that "the Great Pyramid must have some extremely strong connection with the epoch of 2500 BC - the approximate date at which all orthodox Egyptologists and archaeologists in fact believe it to have been built." Earlier, in Fingerprints of the Gods, I suggested that the ground-plan of the Giza monuments might have been devised in 10,500 BC but that the monuments themselves could have been built over an 8000-year period (from 10,500 BC down to 2500 BC). I pointed out that the Great Pyramid's famous star shafts unequivocally link the monument to the epoch of 2500 BC and that the construction levels through which the shafts run might be explained as "the later work of the same long-lived cult that laid out the Giza ground-plan in 10,450 BC.'
  
• Robert Bauval and I have jointly evolved a tentative 'theory of Giza' over the past five years of our work together. Briefly this theory -- which we offer as a serious alternative to the orthodox 'tombs and tombs only' hypothesis -- is that the three great pyramids of Giza, and the Great Sphinx, form a symbolic architectural model of some of the principal stars of the Duat sky-region (through which the Pharaohs believed that their souls would travel after death) as that sky-region appeared at dawn on the spring equinox in the epoch of 10,500 BC. Citing the geological findings of John Anthony West and Robert Schoch, we have argued, and continue to maintain, that the Great Sphinx and its associated megalithic structures may actually have been built in that distant epoch. We have also argued, and continue to maintain, that the three great pyramids in general are likely to be much younger than the Sphinx and that they should probably be assigned to the Fourth Dynasty (rather than to any other period) because of the alignments of the star shafts.
  
• Ultimately, however, our hypothesis does not stand or fall on the precise dates at which individual monuments were built. A symbolic architectural model of the Duat sky region as it last appeared in 10,500 BC could theoretically have been designed in any epoch (I repeat, in any epoch) by any culture possessing a knowledge of the astronomical cycle of precession and of how it alters stellar positions over long periods of time.
  
• In short, we are more interested in why such a model was built than when it was built.
  
• For the record I believe that Khufu did build the Great Pyramid - or anyway most of it (perhaps the subterranean chamber and some other rock-hewn parts of the structure may be earlier).
  
• For the record I do not believe that Khufu built the Pyramid as his tomb. The very fact that his name only appears within the monument in the form of quarry marks accidentally left behind in inaccessible chambers goes to prove that he was not such an ego-maniac. I think that he built it for another purpose altogether - a far loftier and much more mysterious purpose. Further details are provided in my forthcoming book "Heaven's Mirror" (UK and US publication, late September 1998) and in the accompanying TV series 'Quest For The Lost Civilization' (The Learning Chanel, US, August, 1998; Channel 4, UK, September/October 1998)
  

http://www.grahamhancock.com/features/trenches-p4.htm

[Scott Creighton]

Few questions specifically in relation to the Glyphs in the cracks and not the easily accesible khufu cartouche's.

Can someone please highlight, who found the glyphs in the cracks first? Was it Hawass? I certainly don't trust the man after the way he has treated the Osiris Shaft find.

Do those Glyphs mention anything about Khufu?

Do they make any sense?

What is the language of the glyphs?

Are they just abstract symbols of the worker gangs,or those who actually made the pyramids?

Does somebody have pictures of the glyphs?

I feel that the argument against Sitchin's position is only strengthened by these glyphs(supposedly ancient egyptian) in the cracks, rest all could have been forged easily by Vyse, so it is important to discuss these glyphs in more detail.I would be very happy if Sesh or Scott can answer my querries.

Hi,

I discussed this issue with Graham some years ago and again more recently. This is what he had to say:

"It's a long time ago now, but I am 100 per cent certain that none say "Khufu". Nor are they lines/registers of hieroglyphs. They are simple, isolated and (though I am no expert in these things) look like typical quarry marks to me." - Graham Hancock (private email)

Regards,

SC

Edited April 16, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[DieChecker]

So basically it does not matter to some people if the graffiti is hard to get at. Their impression is that if we can see it, it is probably fake. Regardless of hundreds of experts who say it is real... it is the lone believer on the internet who is the only one who is actually correct...

By all means let's quote Graham Hancock and call that the best profession explaination. Let's trust the opinion of a guy that lives off selling books proposing Fringe Theorys.

[Scott Creighton]

So basically it does not matter to some people if the graffiti is hard to get at. Their impression is that if we can see it, it is probably fake. Regardless of hundreds of experts who say it is real... it is the lone believer on the internet who is the only one who is actually correct...

SC: Hmmm... thoughts of Galileo come to mind here. Graffiti is not the same thing as 'quarry marks'. If you read Hancock's statement to me above (private email), he is quite clear that there was no hieroglyphic graffiti on any of the blocks in these tight gaps, just "quarry marks". The hieroglyphic graffiti--all of it-is out in open, accessible areas of the 'chamber'.

DC: By all means let's quote Graham Hancock and call that the best profession explaination.

SC: Graham Hancock had free reign by Hawass to investigate those chambers. He was there and saw everything first hand with his own eyes. If you can get a better eye-witness account from a 'professional' then by all means do so and present the results here. I, for one, would be interested to see what others have to say.

DC: Let's trust the opinion of a guy that lives off selling books proposing Fringe Theorys.

SC: Ah - so it is an issue of "trust" for you. Graham Hancock is not to be trusted? What utter BS. I seriously doubt Graham Hancock would be stupid enough to state untruths about the markings in any of these chambers when he knows full well that he would very quickly be called to book on any untruths he stated.

And what's wrong with selling books? Hawass does it. Lehner and Dodson do it. Romer, Verner and Stadelmann have done it too. And a whole host of others. Or is it simply that you object to anyone selling a book that goes against your own, cherished beliefs of ancient Egypt? Well, get over it. Those writers you so obviously disapprove of live in a democracy and, as such, they have the freedom of speech to write whatever they want whether you approve of it or not. In short, the real problem here is all yours, your intolerance of anything that presents an alternative view of our ancient past and has little, if anything, to do with what Hancock writes. And you have the freedom too to simply ignore his books and move on.

SC

Edited April 16, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[Merc14]

To continue to argue something that you have ti stretch the truth so tightly for is ridiculous. The only thing I can think is you will continue until your those arguing against you just plain quit and then you will announce you "Have won since they have no answer to my questions!!" Ridiculous and embarrassing. I suggest you throw your abilities at another project, maybe you will actually discover something.

[cormac mac airt]

SC: See my earlier post on this issue:

I am clearly stating that Howard-Vyse COULD have perpetrated the fraud and then express my personal opinion that I think he "probably did". Personal opinions are not fact. So, I'm not quite sure how you think I am making this "more fact than possibility".

The simple POINT I am making here is that, to the Egypt-apologists, it simply was not possible for Howard-Vyse to have perpetrated such a fraud, the implication then being that the inscriptions bearing Khufu's name in these chambers must therefore be genuine.

I have shown how Howard-Vyse COULD have achieved such a fraud, ergo, contrary to the impossiblity of such asserted by the Egypt-apologists, it now becomes POSSIBLE that Howard-Vyse COULD have perpetrated a fraud, ergo, contrary to the claims of the Egypt-apologists, it now becomes possible that the inscriptions bearing Khufu's name in these chambers MAY not be genuine.

I am merely showing that what was regarded as an impossibility is actually quite possible.

Regards,

SC

Perhaps not so much:

But Vyses Journal tells another story:

On May 27th 1837 we find the first entry dealing with the Khufu-cartouche. In the following days Vyse begins with an analysis. And if one is able to read his hand writing he finds out fascinating things. Yes, Vyse was no expert on hieroglyphics. And yes, Vyse had the fatal book "Material Hieroglyphica" with him. And because he HAD the book with him he expected a solar disc as the first sign. And he was wondering, why this sign was NOT a solar disc. He couldn't get a sense out of the "Kh", therefore he philosophises on this page of his journal about the possibility to write a "Re" with lines in it instead of a dot.

He even copied the faulty picture from Wilkinson to this page of his notes, it's on the upper left - the hollow solar disc is clearly visible. On the right side he notes, that this disc can also be written with a dot in the middle (the small circle on top) and that he had expected one of these two writings - and notes, that he instead got a circle with three lines. This is clearly an aberration from Wilkinson, a famous hieroglyphic expert. So Vyse did not copy something from a book to the walls - he found something that completely contradicted a table of a famous academic book.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/Ghizawho.htm#3.2

As should be obvious there's a difference between forging something versus finding something that was previously unknown.

cormac

Edited April 17, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[kmt_sesh]

Few questions specifically in relation to the Glyphs in the cracks and not the easily accesible khufu cartouche's.

Can someone please highlight, who found the glyphs in the cracks first? Was it Hawass? I certainly don't trust the man after the way he has treated the Osiris Shaft find.

Do those Glyphs mention anything about Khufu?

Do they make any sense?

What is the language of the glyphs?

Are they just abstract symbols of the worker gangs,or those who actually made the pyramids?

Does somebody have pictures of the glyphs?

I feel that the argument against Sitchin's position is only strengthened by these glyphs(supposedly ancient egyptian) in the cracks, rest all could have been forged easily by Vyse, so it is important to discuss these glyphs in more detail.I would be very happy if Sesh or Scott can answer my querries.

I have no idea, myself, who first noticed the glyphs. I have to think it was been decades before Hawass was even born. Perhaps Vyse noticed them, which would not be surprising. He did a decent job recording all of the extant and easily visible glyphs, so it wouldn't have been surprising if he saw the markings behind and between the masonry.

I also don't know precisely what form or shape those glyphs take, either. I've seen countless very good photos of the relieving chambers and the abundance of graffiti (both ancient and modern) but have never seen photos or illustrations of the "hidden" glyphs. And dammit, I've searched. I am still searching now, thanks to the resurgence of this discussion. Bear in mind the masonry in the relieving chambers is massive—load bearing—and sticking pieces of painted wood between them is not going to produce a credibly hoax. This smacks of desperation on the part of those who so dearly want the graffiti to be a fraud, which it is not. No one properly trained in the ancient language and its scripts believes the graffiti to be a hoax. I side with them.

You should not side with Graham Hancock. The man admits not to knowing hieroglyphs, so he is clearly not in a position to conduct a reliable analysis of any of the hieroglyphs in the graffiti. I am not saying he's necessarily wrong about those markings between the masonry, but obviously he is not a source to turn to for credible conclusions on this matter. When one reviews the bullet points in the retraction which you posted, it's clear Hancock is lacking a fundamental understanding of ancient Egypt to begin with, so it goes without saying there are much better sources to turn to—say, the people properly trained to analyze these things? Seems like common sense to me.

All in all, the markings between the masonry could in fact just be builder's marks. However, they might be hieroglyphs expressing coherent phrases like the plainly visible graffiti. I am going to continue to search for better information and am plumbing some academic databases, but until I come across an analysis presented by a credible historian, I will admit it could go either way. I certainly won't allow Graham Hancock to have the final word on the matter.

The most important thing to emphasize is, there is universal agreement in the Egyptological community that the graffiti is authentic. That is not about to change.

How exactly has Hawass "treated" the Osiris Shaft to earn him your ire? Hawass and his team are the only ones to date to have conducted a proper archaeological excavation of this feature. We needn't bog down this discussion on the Osiris Shaft because it isn't relevant to what we're debating here, but in 2011 I started a discussion on the Osiris Shaft which is based on Hawass's excavation report: you can find that discussion here. I wouldn't mind if you shared your thoughts in that discussion.

[kmt_sesh]

...

And what's wrong with selling books? Hawass does it. Lehner and Dodson do it. Romer, Verner and Stadelmann have done it too. And a whole host of others. Or is it simply that you object to anyone selling a book that goes against your own, cherished beliefs of ancient Egypt? Well, get over it. Those writers you so obviously disapprove of live in a democracy and, as such, they have the freedom of speech to write whatever they want whether you approve of it or not. In short, the real problem here is all yours, your intolerance of anything that presents an alternative view of our ancient past and has little, if anything, to do with what Hancock writes. And you have the freedom too to simply ignore his books and move on.

SC

Personally I have no problem with Hancock and other alternative authors publishing their books. They have a right to do so. Everyone must earn a living—but an obvious distinction has to be made.

Yes, many Egyptologists and other historians have published books for laypeople to read and enjoy. Lehner has done it, so has Dodson, Verner, and Stadelmann, and many others. So did Hawass (arguably too many books for laypeople).

But these books are not the focus of their careers. They are not the most important written materials they've authored. As you well know, in academia, it's publish or perish—and books written for laypeople are not the primary contributions in a professional historian's career. They write such books because they have a passion for their jobs and want to share their ideas and discoveries with the general public; and the general public has always had a keen interest in archaeology. But in point of fact, all of the Egyptologists you've listed (and almost all others) publish far more peer-reviewed papers expressly written to further the academic world's understanding of pharaonic Egypt. Few people among the general public read these papers and articles, and from what I've seen at UM, few people are even aware they exist. Many such historians write article after paper for academic review and publish few if any books for the general public.

But this is not the case for Sitchin, von Däniken, Hancock, Bauval, and the others. Yes, they are probably passionate about their own alternative hypotheses, but the books they write are not for the sake of professional review. They are not held to the standards of universities and institutions such as historians are, nor do they have any obligation to follow proper research protocols. In other words, they write their books not for academia or education but to earn a living. Their main focus is personal monetary profit. Their books are for the entertainment of the general public and go no farther than that.

So such folks can indeed write all the books they want, and they have every right to do so, but don't try to blur the distinction between professional historians and alternative authors. There is a reason, after all, that so many book stores do not put their books in the history section but in the occult or New Age section.

[kmt_sesh]

Perhaps not so much:

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/Ghizawho.htm#3.2

As should be obvious there's a difference between forging something versus finding something that was previously unknown.

cormac

Thanks for posting this, cormac. Very interesting reading. So, it looks after all like Sitchin falsified evidence for his The Stairway to Heaven. Imagine that.

Why am I not surprised?

[cormac mac airt]

Thanks for posting this, cormac. Very interesting reading. So, it looks after all like Sitchin falsified evidence for his The Stairway to Heaven. Imagine that.

Why am I not surprised?

It gets better. One can download Vyse's journals 1 and 2 at the following:

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/howard_vyse1840bd1?sid=1aaaea2d7221f705eef1613ae46629fa

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/howard_vyse1841bd2?sid=1aaaea2d7221f705eef1613ae46629fa

Nowhere in either will one find validation in support of Sitchin's fabrications of what Vyse knew or did as regards the claim of forging Khufu's name in the GP. In short, Sitchin lied and Vyse didn't forge anything.

cormac

[SHaYap]

It gets better. One can download Vyse's journals 1 and 2 at the following:

http://digi.ub.uni-h...ef1613ae46629fa

http://digi.ub.uni-h...ef1613ae46629fa

Nowhere in either will one find validation in support of Sitchin's fabrications of what Vyse knew or did as regards the claim of forging Khufu's name in the GP. In short, Sitchin lied and Vyse didn't forge anything.

cormac

Not saying anything but ... Sir Cormac .. but that two is a real bore ...

i think the good Colonel was more trying to impress his peers ... as dry as the ground he was digging

[Harsh86_Patel]

Hi,

I discussed this issue with Graham some years ago and again more recently. This is what he had to say:

Regards,

SC

The reason i am interested in the Glyphs, if there are any is because they may hold the clue to who actually built the pyramid.Up until now "there are glyphs in inaccesible areas'" has been flouted as a prime argument against the Vyse Forgery hypothesis.

The mainstreamers are satisfied with quarry marks as that helps them to laugh at the ancient alien proponents, but it does not put an end to the question of who actually built the great pyramids.

I believe it was certainly not Khufu or the same AE who built the other pyramids, the stark differences do not need to be pointed out.Along with the water errossion marks on the Sphinx and the astrological correlation with the Orion belt in 10500 BC, it makes a very strong case for the Great Pyramids and the sphinx to be way older then the other Pyramids.

The date is very interesting and i have been looking into other sources that may have data which might be contemporary with the date.

[Harsh86_Patel]

I have no idea, myself, who first noticed the glyphs. I have to think it was been decades before Hawass was even born. Perhaps Vyse noticed them, which would not be surprising. He did a decent job recording all of the extant and easily visible glyphs, so it wouldn't have been surprising if he saw the markings behind and between the masonry.

I also don't know precisely what form or shape those glyphs take, either. I've seen countless very good photos of the relieving chambers and the abundance of graffiti (both ancient and modern) but have never seen photos or illustrations of the "hidden" glyphs. And dammit, I've searched. I am still searching now, thanks to the resurgence of this discussion. Bear in mind the masonry in the relieving chambers is massive—load bearing—and sticking pieces of painted wood between them is not going to produce a credibly hoax. This smacks of desperation on the part of those who so dearly want the graffiti to be a fraud, which it is not. No one properly trained in the ancient language and its scripts believes the graffiti to be a hoax. I side with them.

You should not side with Graham Hancock. The man admits not to knowing hieroglyphs, so he is clearly not in a position to conduct a reliable analysis of any of the hieroglyphs in the graffiti. I am not saying he's necessarily wrong about those markings between the masonry, but obviously he is not a source to turn to for credible conclusions on this matter. When one reviews the bullet points in the retraction which you posted, it's clear Hancock is lacking a fundamental understanding of ancient Egypt to begin with, so it goes without saying there are much better sources to turn to—say, the people properly trained to analyze these things? Seems like common sense to me.

All in all, the markings between the masonry could in fact just be builder's marks. However, they might be hieroglyphs expressing coherent phrases like the plainly visible graffiti. I am going to continue to search for better information and am plumbing some academic databases, but until I come across an analysis presented by a credible historian, I will admit it could go either way. I certainly won't allow Graham Hancock to have the final word on the matter.

The most important thing to emphasize is, there is universal agreement in the Egyptological community that the graffiti is authentic. That is not about to change.

How exactly has Hawass "treated" the Osiris Shaft to earn him your ire? Hawass and his team are the only ones to date to have conducted a proper archaeological excavation of this feature. We needn't bog down this discussion on the Osiris Shaft because it isn't relevant to what we're debating here, but in 2011 I started a discussion on the Osiris Shaft which is based on Hawass's excavation report: you can find that discussion here. I wouldn't mind if you shared your thoughts in that discussion.

Do you ignore the possiblity that the Glyphs in the inaccesible areas if any could be the original builders signature and may not have anything to do with the cartouche's forged by Vyse.

I am more interested in those glyphs if any as they might hold the clue to who really built the pyramids.

[Scott Creighton]

SC: And what's wrong with selling books? Hawass does it. Lehner and Dodson do it. Romer, Verner and Stadelmann have done it too. And a whole host of others. Or is it simply that you object to anyone selling a book that goes against your own, cherished beliefs of ancient Egypt? Well, get over it. Those writers you so obviously disapprove of live in a democracy and, as such, they have the freedom of speech to write whatever they want whether you approve of it or not. In short, the real problem here is all yours, your intolerance of anything that presents an alternative view of our ancient past and has little, if anything, to do with what Hancock writes. And you have the freedom too to simply ignore his books and move on.

KMS: Personally I have no problem with Hancock and other alternative authors publishing their books. They have a right to do so. Everyone must earn a living—but an obvious distinction has to be made.

Yes, many Egyptologists and other historians have published books for laypeople to read and enjoy. Lehner has done it, so has Dodson, Verner, and Stadelmann, and many others. So did Hawass (arguably too many books for laypeople). … But in point of fact, all of the Egyptologists you've listed (and almost all others) publish far more peer-reviewed papers expressly written to further the academic world's understanding of pharaonic Egypt. … But this is not the case for Sitchin, von Däniken, Hancock, Bauval, and the others.

SC: Yes, you like to do that, don’t you. Lump all alternative writers together in order that you can tarnish them all with your same cynical brush. There is a mighty big difference to what, for example, Bauval writes to what von Däniken writes. But to you they are all just the same. Utterly ridiculous. It’s like saying the discipline of those who study the history of Egypt (Egyptologists) is the same discipline as those who study the history of climate (Climatologists). Different histories, different spheres. But I imagine it suits your ends to lump them all together—much easier that way to tarnish by association. Pathetic.

KMS: Yes, they are probably passionate about their own alternative hypotheses, but the books they write are not for the sake of professional review. They are not held to the standards of universities and institutions such as historians are, nor do they have any obligation to follow proper research protocols.

In other words, they write their books not for academia or education but to earn a living. Their main focus is personal monetary profit. Their books are for the entertainment of the general public and go no farther than that.

SC: And what you completely fail to understand is that it is precisely because Bauval & Hancock are not subject to peer review that allows them the freedom to express new ideas, new thinking. It is because they are not shackled with the need to peer review that they can approach those matters that consensus Egyptology struggles to properly answer with ideas of their own.

KMS: So such folks can indeed write all the books they want, and they have every right to do so, but don't try to blur the distinction between professional historians and alternative authors.

SC: No one is blurring anything. I think we are all quite clear on the distinction between consensus Egyptology and the alternative variety.

KMS: There is a reason, after all, that so many book stores do not put their books in the history section but in the occult or New Age section

SC: And there is a reason also why most of the big breakthroughs in many fields of study come from individuals outside the field of study, from outside the ‘establishment’. Think John Harrison, think Michael Faraday, Think Galileo, think Kepler, think Farnsworth and think a thousand others. THAT is why it is important that people outside a discipline continue their own, unshackled research and write their own unshackled books. For, if history has taught us one thing, it is that original thinkers will not be shackled by the narrow, self-serving peer review panels. And that if their ideas are sound, they will ultimately prevail regardless of what the ‘establishment’ presently thinks. Peer review – great idea in theory but not so much in practice where all it does is inhibit and suffocate new ideas and approaches as Egyptologist, Dr Lorraine Evans, knows only too well:

”The fact that I had unearthed so many pieces of evidence, archaeological and historical, to show Egyptian settlement in the British Isles raised one question. Why had this all been ignored in academic circles? One of the main reasons, I felt, was that if such information was readily accepted then academia would rapidly have to rewrite huge chunks of history. This would throw certain traditional ‘historical facts’ into tremendous doubt. It is important to stress that many academics’ careers are based on these ‘facts’ and to disprove them overnight would make these people redundant. During the research of this book, I soon discovered that some academics were quite willing to share their work off the record, but when it came to committing it to print they soon backed down and a wall of silence greeted me. None of them, it appeared, wanted to put their jobs on the line, to tell the truth. The sad reality of the matter is that we are relying on these people to tell us our history, but they seem content to operate under a veil of academic censorship.” - Dr Lorraine Evans, Kingdom of the Ark, p.286

And Dr Evans’ experience of the academic establishment is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. As she rightly points out, peer review is nothing more than censorship where long-running rivalries fester unabated and academic snobbery and one-upmanship is the order of the day and all for nothing more than their personal lust for prestige and their personal pursuit of their place in history. That is no way to conduct science, pursue truth. Historical truth is not subject to a show of hands.

Thank heavens we have alternative writers outside that dreadful, self-serving cabal.

SC

Edited April 17, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

That is what I remember too... reeds were used to write with.

Long memory, and perhaps you still have the marks on your "ears" that so aided your use of reed pens

[Scott Creighton]

Perhaps not so much:

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/Ghizawho.htm#3.2

As should be obvious there's a difference between forging something versus finding something that was previously unknown.

cormac

SC: Nonsense. Go back and read this thread more thoroughly.

SC

[zoser]

Dunn, Foerster and the team arrive in Egypt to do some more investigations:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4701479022709&set=a.1228655844300.2032723.1466217088&type=1&theater

[zoser]

That grafitti in the GP was nothing but Vyse's work and fools no one but idiots.

No offence intended. It just doesn't match the construction and artwork that the GP is said to be contemporary with.

Just grafitti.

Regarding the remaining inscriptions that supposedly signify the original work gangs.

Were the slaves or workers really entitled to do that? Other dignitaries left no inscriptions? Really?

Pull the other one.

[Harte]

It gets better. One can download Vyse's journals 1 and 2 at the following:

http://digi.ub.uni-h...ef1613ae46629fa

http://digi.ub.uni-h...ef1613ae46629fa

Nowhere in either will one find validation in support of Sitchin's fabrications of what Vyse knew or did as regards the claim of forging Khufu's name in the GP. In short, Sitchin lied and Vyse didn't forge anything.

cormac

As I've said a hundred times, and as I've illustrated several times here and elsewhere with the pertinent page from Vyse's journal.

It doesn't matter to the fringe crowd, however. I can tell you flat out that Creighton has seen the very same argument before. With pics from the journal. Yet he still carries on with his impossible claim, as if nobody has shown him anything.

The motivation for such actions is difficult to fathom, but I've a theory on it. I've stated that before as well.

Harte

[Scott Creighton]

I can tell you flat out that Creighton has seen the very same argument before. With pics from the journal. Yet he still carries on with his impossible claim, as if nobody has shown him anything.

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:

SC

Edited April 17, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

SC: Nonsense. Go back and read this thread more thoroughly.

I've read this thread and where you're trying to imply Vyse "could" have forged Khufu's name I can only say bullscheise read twice is still bullscheise.

It has hee-haw to do with Sitchin.

Peripherally it does since Sitchin was trying to promote the fiction that Vyse forged Khufu's name with a version of his name that wasn't even in Wilkinson's book that Vyse had in his possession, and was therefore an unknown form of Khufu's name at that time. A fiction of which, at least in part, you have bought into apparently.

Zoser: That grafitti in the GP was nothing but Vyse's work and fools no one but idiots.

Evidently a version of Khufu's name that wasn't even known at the time fooled you into believing Vyse forged it. Feeling like an idiot are you? I'm sorry.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

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:

SC

It would seem Harte is right.

I am of course very familiar with this entire thread, and have read all of its posts. 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. You are certainly not the voice of authority on this subject, so I will take evidence over speculation every time—and cormac's links to Vyse's journals constitute real evidence.

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. 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. 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.

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

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

[Harte]

Thanks to both for confirming I'm right, but we already knew that.

Now, if you could just do it without quoting, I'd be totally Creighton-free.

What luxury.

Harte

[DieChecker]

SC: Hmmm... thoughts of Galileo come to mind here. Graffiti is not the same thing as 'quarry marks'. If you read Hancock's statement to me above (private email), he is quite clear that there was no hieroglyphic graffiti on any of the blocks in these tight gaps, just "quarry marks". The hieroglyphic graffiti--all of it-is out in open, accessible areas of the 'chamber'.

And... I'm just to take his word on that???

SC: Graham Hancock had free reign by Hawass to investigate those chambers. He was there and saw everything first hand with his own eyes. If you can get a better eye-witness account from a 'professional' then by all means do so and present the results here. I, for one, would be interested to see what others have to say.

I have to say... So? If I, myself, went there and looked at everything and took photos and made sketches... so what? He is still stating his opinion as to what he saw, which also is contradicted by people who have spent thousands of hours on the subject, not just one time in the Relieving chamber.

SC: Ah - so it is an issue of "trust" for you. Graham Hancock is not to be trusted? What utter BS. I seriously doubt Graham Hancock would be stupid enough to state untruths about the markings in any of these chambers when he knows full well that he would very quickly be called to book on any untruths he stated.

Called to book? Didn't that happen the same day each various book came out? Graham is branded as a Alternative Writer for a reason, because so much of what he has written is misrepresented or seriously challanged as to if it was made up or not.

And what's wrong with selling books?

Kmt answered that pretty well. The difference is in the motivation. Graham lives off his book sales, so if that are controversial and stand out, all the better for him, as people will buy them to see what the stink is about. If he wrote just a digest of what is already known, his books would not sell at all.

much easier that way to tarnish by association.

I think Kmt was only making the point that the various "Fringe" writers are not scholars, but are writers, who live by writing, and thus their motivations might not be purely scientific or for love of history.

SC: And what you completely fail to understand is that it is precisely because Bauval & Hancock are not subject to peer review that allows them the freedom to express new ideas, new thinking. It is because they are not shackled with the need to peer review that they can approach those matters that consensus Egyptology struggles to properly answer with ideas of their own.

Which is fine... great even... But those ideas need to have evidence behind them or they are just speculation... and wild speculation at that. And when the evidence goes against those ideas, proceeding to try to discount the opposing evidence, rather then try to associate new evidence to the floundering idea, is an act of desperation.

SC: And there is a reason also why most of the big breakthroughs in many fields of study come from individuals outside the field of study, from outside the ‘establishment’.

Really Scott?.... MOST? Try occationally. There is the occational Genius who trancends one area of study and the current paradyms and figures out great things. But most gains in science and engineering and math are made by educated experts who spend great amounts of time in research and development of such ideas.

As she rightly points out, peer review is nothing more than censorship where long-running rivalries fester unabated and academic snobbery and one-upmanship is the order of the day and all for nothing more than their personal lust for prestige and their personal pursuit of their place in history. That is no way to conduct science, pursue truth. Historical truth is not subject to a show of hands.

"Nothing more then"... Really? Again? This is a definative statement, not an opinion. Probably 99.9999999999% of everything done in science, math and engineering goes through this process, BUT WAIT... It is only a popularity contest!! Because you know all the various technological and scientific achievements in the last 100 years have shown that most things that go through Peer Review were shown to not actually be true... OH WAIT.... That didn't happen....

Edited April 17, 2013 by DieChecker

[cormac mac airt]

Thanks to both for confirming I'm right, but we already knew that.

Now, if you could just do it without quoting, I'd be totally Creighton-free.

What luxury.

Harte

Hey, we all have our crosses to bear.

cormac