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 -
kmt_sesh

Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid

477 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Irna

Hi Harte,

But... only 25 posts in 7 years?

We need more from you.

Well, now that the Bosnian "pyramids" are almost dead, I'm trying to have a look at some other pyramids :)

Irna

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

SC: In his unproduced letters. Are you suggesting that Walter Allen made this up? What would his motives have been? The "notes" make some remarks that are entirely verifiable thereby conferring credibility upon the original source.

SC

Do you have evidence validating what he claimed about his great-grandfather? Even if Walter Allen believed it that doesn't make it automatically true. As a personal example my maternal line firmly believed and passed down the claim one of my Great Great Grandmothers was a full-blooded Cherokee from South Carolina. Until I proved said claim wrong while doing our family history. Her father was English and her mother was Scottish and neither were from South Carolina. People can, and do, propogate false-hoods at times whether they realize it themselves or not.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

SC: In his unproduced letters. Are you suggesting that Walter Allen made this up? What would his motives have been? The "notes" make some remarks that are entirely verifiable thereby conferring credibility upon the original source.

SC

So your whole theory is based on a fifth hand account of what may be in some notes that no one directly involved has ever seen? Are you kidding me??? This doesn't even rate as hearsay evidence! Ridiculous, and the acting so incredulous that someone would "Think Walter Allen is making this up?" is mind boggling since you are accusing Vyse of committing fraud and vandalism on a world treasure without a shred of evidence. LMAO.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

SC: In his unproduced letters. Are you suggesting that Walter Allen made this up? What would his motives have been? The "notes" make some remarks that are entirely verifiable thereby conferring credibility upon the original source.

SC

Refer to Irna's well-explained Post 169. He (she?) beat me to it. Here again you're falling upon Sitchin's misrepresentation of the facts. I know you hate my bringing Sitchin into this, but you keep repeating the slights of hand he introduced over 30 years ago. This statement supposedly made by Brewer is not supported by evidence. If there was some sort of actual written record, it no longer exists. This, too, is a dead end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

...

What will now happen here is kmt will eventually just stop answering the same questions over and over again because it is apparent to all but the delusional that SC will never admit he is wrong or that there is any answer other than his. When kmt stops answering, the fringer, SC, will start claiming victory with the words "See, he can no longer answer my questions and hides from the debate." This will then be presented as proof to his followers. The CTers do the same thing (see any 911 truther argument).

All you can do with these types is present your overwhelming proof debunking their theories and allow them to attack with the same theories and questions ad-infinitum, no matter the weight of evidence against their theories. Not once has SC admitted he may be wrong or less than 100% correct and he never will. Not ever. Hopefully the reasonable man will see that the fringer is completely beyond reasoning and that his data, now shot full of holes and sinking by the bow, is in error, and make the right decision and dismiss the bunk.

You have a damn fine grasp of the frustration here, Merc14. It is a typical fringe tactic to present a premise, then to be buried by the counter-arguments of opposing points of view, but to continue to present the same flawed premise without surcease. One should think repeating a mistake is not going to correct the mistake, but so it goes. You're right, I grow weary of the repetition, and sometimes choose not to reply to a post because it contains the same flawed premise repeated multiple times regardless of how many times it's been addressed by numerous posters. I have indeed seen fringe posters announce they've "won" because no one is replying to them anymore, which strikes me as exceedingly childish. To be fair to Scott, however, I've never seen him do this.

One thing I should think Scott might notice is that his point of view has not won any support in this discussion. Nevertheless, Scott seems to think he must be right just because he says so. I concede the possibility of a hoax, but "possibility" is every bit as weak as speculation, so in the end it is neither probable nor realistic. The evidence tells us this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll be away the rest of the day for an event at the museum this evening, so perhaps I'll return later tonight. I owe Harsh a reply from his last post to me (I haven't forgotten), but won't have the time this afternoon or evening. I've been studying John Perring's surveys of Giza and there is one or two things I'd like to present from those.

Meanwhile, everyone, carry on. :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

You're right, I grow weary of the repetition, and sometimes choose not to reply to a post because it contains the same flawed premise repeated multiple times regardless of how many times it's been addressed by numerous posters. I have indeed seen fringe posters announce they've "won" because no one is replying to them anymore, which strikes me as exceedingly childish. To be fair to Scott, however, I've never seen him do this.

We're all doing essentially the same thing because there is almost no evidence

at all. Most of the reason there's no evidence is the simple fact that more than 4500

years has erased the evidence but there's also 4000 years of tourists carrying off

souvenirs as well as "scientists", kings, and archaeologists removing various things.

This is why we need a firm footing to understanding the pyramids and this is why we

have no firm footing. People are making up their minds on the basis preconcepions

and these are sometimes in error. This seems to pain those who accept orthodox

positions but these are the facts.

This isn't to say that I believe these marks are fake. I do now believe for the first time

there is a significant chance that they were amended and I'm no longer as certain

they aren't altogether legitimate. I still accept the word of several reasonable people

who have reported that the marking extends under other stones that couldn't be fake.

One of the biggest frustrations of alts is that Egyptoilogy controls these sites and is

not gathering the evidence to prove or disprove anything at all. We have very sophis-

ticated chemical tests now days that could virtually pinpoint the source of the iron in

these markings and could easily show whether they are from different eras. Yet, none

of these tests are ever carried out as the powers that be continually claim that there

is no evidence to support other hypotheses. There's also no evidence for their hypot-

heses and so long as their heads are buried we aren't going to get answers.

I doubt blasting residue would survive here but it's not so outrageous a proposal as it

might sound on the surface. Even if it didn't help to date the markings it might help to

date something else in these chambers.

A final note, wasn't it dead insects that were identified as covering the floor of one chamber?

I don't understand how there can be any question about so simple a thing. This throws

the entire subject of the pyramids into a deeper blackness and mystery if we can't even

keep the basics straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

What I noticed in doing so is the relative paucity of information regarding these chambers. Yes, Vyse writes a lot of details about them, but in his explorations of Giza it's clear the discovery of the upper chambers was not the most important find in his own mind. This is the first time I've read the journal, so I was surprised to see the amount of time Vyse spends on explaining his explorations of the so-called air shafts. He also devotes a significant amount of space to the tomb he called Campbell's Tomb. So while the relieving chambers are covered in his journal entries, they were clearly not Vyse's focus at Giza.

In the middle of numerous entries pertaining to the chambers, in fact, I was surprised to see Vyse's entry for April 26 (1837: 235): "All hopes of an important discovery were not yet given up, and the best quarrymen were employed to get above the roof of Nelson's Chamber." By this point the graffiti had already been discovered (almost a month earlier). The process of blasting into each subsequent chamber was slow going, and obviously it's not the graffiti that most interested Vyse. He does not elaborate, but with all such antiquarians of the mid-nineteenth century, to Vyse "an important discovery" most likely meant pharaonic gold. None was to be had.

Since Vyse was so interested in the shafts, perhaps he was hoping to find more shafts in the Relieving Chambers?

Has anyone tried to get above the last relieving chamber? Vyse or otherwise?

Especially so with someone of the low moral character of Howard-Vyse in charge of proceedings.

....

In any case, I hardly see Humphries Brewer having a dispute about the painting of Arbuthnott or Campbell into the chambers—this isn’t forgery and hardly something to have a dispute over.

Do we even know that Brewer worked with Vyse? Is his name in the Journals? Is there a record that shows Brewer to be a upright man? Or, can we assume that he was hired by a "Fraud" because it was known he would go along with it, because he was a Fraudster also?? If so then there is about the same odds (assuming letters are real) that the painting happened, or that the whole thing was made up.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Do we even know that Brewer worked with Vyse? Is his name in the Journals? Is there a record that shows Brewer to be a upright man? Or, can we assume that he was hired by a "Fraud" because it was known he would go along with it, because he was a Fraudster also?? If so then there is about the same odds (assuming letters are real) that the painting happened, or that the whole thing was made up.

Except there are no letters. Read Irma's post on the last page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Except there are no letters. Read Irma's post on the last page.

Even if we assume the letters were real, is there proof this guy even existed? And if he did, did he work with Vyse in Egypt on the Great Pyramid? If that can't even be shown, then the letters would be worthless even if they existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Has it even been shown that the cartouche Vyse found existed in Western journals before he found it? The discussion has continued as if that point was resolved, but I did not see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Since Vyse was so interested in the shafts, perhaps he was hoping to find more shafts in the Relieving Chambers?

Has anyone tried to get above the last relieving chamber? Vyse or otherwise?

Do we even know that Brewer worked with Vyse? Is his name in the Journals? Is there a record that shows Brewer to be a upright man? Or, can we assume that he was hired by a "Fraud" because it was known he would go along with it, because he was a Fraudster also?? If so then there is about the same odds (assuming letters are real) that the painting happened, or that the whole thing was made up.

DieChecker, as far as I can tell Brewer's name isn't in any of the 3 Journals belonging to Vyse, nor in the one by Perring that covers Giza. Not that it would be expected as he may not have been important enough to have been included in any of the journals.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Has it even been shown that the cartouche Vyse found existed in Western journals before he found it? The discussion has continued as if that point was resolved, but I did not see it.

Vyse had Wilkinson's book as a reference at the time, yet the particular difference in the cartouche Vyse found wasn't in the book nor is there evidence that it was known prior to his discovery. It has subsequently been found that it is indeed a variation of Khufu's name.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

Has it even been shown that the cartouche Vyse found existed in Western journals before he found it? The discussion has continued as if that point was resolved, but I did not see it.

SC: For about the tenth time: The Khufu Cartouche (AND Khnum Khuf Cartouche) was Published FIVE YEARS BEFORE Howard-Vyse went to Egypt by Italian Egyptologist, Rosellini. See HERE.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

SO you rely on Vyse's testimaony that he was not alone when he found the Glyphs, to suggest that he was not a forger, Doesn't seem a very prudent technique.

Time is tight tonight but I wanted to reply to your post. I can suggest you read Vyse's journal for yourself. You seem to have skipped over almost all of the pertinent information from my post and are falling back on Scott's premise that because Vyse had something of a shady past, we must regard this as proof that he forged the graffiti. In actuality we cannot do this, regardless of how convenient it might be and how it might excuse us to ignore the overall sum of evidence. And the overall sum of evidence, including everything from Vyse's journal to Perring's publication to a proper linguistic understanding of the glyphs and to extant evidence at Giza in general, dismisses the notion of a hoax. Evidence is all that matters—character assassination is not evidence.

Consider that Vyse worked almost every day with John Perring, an Egyptologist as well as an engineer. Vyse published his journal in 1837 and Perring published his surveys, in three volumes, around three years later. Many of the things Perring includes in his survey descriptions mirror what can be read in Vyse's journal, based on what he and Vyse observed and experienced together. It seems rather ridiculous that Vyse would publish an outright lie about something so basic and, moreover, something Perring would've read for himself. This is not realistic.

He was desperate to find something, he is a typical glory hound. And like SC mentioned that the person who would link the Great Pyramid with it's actual builder would literally be immortalised. This is reason enough for Vyse to have done it, also the reason we are still talking about Vyse is because of those Glyphs and his claims to have found them. What would Vyse be without this great claim, none of us would have known of him.

Vyse is far from immortalized. At best he receives passing mention in popular books and peer-reviewed papers authored by Egyptologists. Again, had you read Vyse's journal, and which I mentioned in my post, it is absolutely clear that the finding of the graffiti was not of great importance or interest to Howard Vyse himself. Like I said in my post, Vyse spends quite a lot more time writing about his explorations of the so-called air shafts and Campbell's Tomb. But to be sure, when it comes to the professional literature, I guarantee you Vyse is little more than a footnote. If you doubt this, feel free to read a dozen or so different books on the Great Pyramid and see how many times Vyse is mentioned. You might need a magnifying glass, as it were.

It just struck me as I was writing this, but the great irony here is Vyse's immortality in fringe circles. The fringe, in its general paranoia and penchant for misrepresentation, spends far more time obsessing over Vyse than legitimate historians do. So in a sense, Harsh, you and folks like Scott are a great deal more responsible for sustaining Vyse's name. Sitchin was the genesis of this falderal, but we've seen without a doubt how Sitchin falsified evidence and misrepresented the written record, so Sitchin need not be taken seriously. Not that he ever was taken seriously.

It is surprising that you so thoroughly doubt the motives of Sitchin because he writes books, but you would not be equally sceptical of VYSE. He was very much a self confessed amateur treasure seeker and glory hound.

Yes, he certainly was. Vyse is definitely not my favorite person among the early explorers of Egypt, but I will not be swayed about character assassinations that cannot be linked to events at Giza. This is a diversion from the historical record of Giza exploration, and serves no useful purpose. The only real thing I dislike about Vyse is his method of exploration: blasting powder.

But you seem to be singling out Vyse as a "treasure seeker" as though he was unique in that regard. The truth is, historical investigations were very much in their infancy when Vyse was there (1837), and the treasure seekers considerably outnumbered the legitimate historians. Much the same was true when Petrie was there sixty years later. Most "archaeologists" digging in Egypt in Vyse's time were more accurately antiquarians, which is a euphemism for treasure seeker. This was pretty much the case all over the Mediterranean world in those early days. Think Heinrich Schliemann and Hissarlik, but that's a whole other story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

Before I pack it in for the night, I wanted to contribute a short post about John Perring's surveys. These were published in three volumes around 1840. All three volumes are available as PDFs on the internet (link). I spent much of this morning reading through the volumes, and it's in the first volume where Perring focused on the Great Pyramid. Perring was not only an Egyptologist but also a civil engineer, and his volumes reflect that. There's a lot less anecdotal information than is shared in Vyse's journal but one finds many excellent and professionally rendered diagrams and illustrations. One also finds examples of the same information in Vyse's journal and Perring's surveys, given how closely the two men worked together.

This includes the attempted diagnoses of the graffiti by the British Museum Egyptologist Samuel Birch (1840: 5). If nothing else, Mercer's attempts at translations are entertaining to read. I shouldn't jest and am clearly guilty of bias borne from modern scholarship of which it's easy for any of us to take advantage, but it's readily evident how poorly the Egyptian script was understood in Birch's day. Of course, were it not for early scholars like Birch, modern scholarship of the pharaonic language and its scripts would not be what they are.

But I digress. I was reading a page from a website that tends to be very good in presenting a level-headed orthodox approach to such things, and something mentioned on the web age caused me to return to the first volume of Perring's publication—and specifically to Perring's carefully rendered transcriptions of the graffiti in the relieving chambers.

Somehow it has always escaped my attention, but graffiti disappearing between and behind blocks of masonry also includes clear examples of Khufu's name. How Hancock missed this is beyond me, considering he was there to study the graffiti, unrestricted, for himself. In studying Perring's drawings I could find at least two examples of this: on the north side of Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber and on the same side of Campbell's Chamber, the name in its cartouche disappears down into the massive blocks of the floor.

Yet another nail in the coffin of the hoax myth. By now, this coffin is more nails than wood.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harsh86_Patel

Time is tight tonight but I wanted to reply to your post. I can suggest you read Vyse's journal for yourself. You seem to have skipped over almost all of the pertinent information from my post and are falling back on Scott's premise that because Vyse had something of a shady past, we must regard this as proof that he forged the graffiti. In actuality we cannot do this, regardless of how convenient it might be and how it might excuse us to ignore the overall sum of evidence. And the overall sum of evidence, including everything from Vyse's journal to Perring's publication to a proper linguistic understanding of the glyphs and to extant evidence at Giza in general, dismisses the notion of a hoax. Evidence is all that matters—character assassination is not evidence.

Consider that Vyse worked almost every day with John Perring, an Egyptologist as well as an engineer. Vyse published his journal in 1837 and Perring published his surveys, in three volumes, around three years later. Many of the things Perring includes in his survey descriptions mirror what can be read in Vyse's journal, based on what he and Vyse observed and experienced together. It seems rather ridiculous that Vyse would publish an outright lie about something so basic and, moreover, something Perring would've read for himself. This is not realistic.

Vyse is far from immortalized. At best he receives passing mention in popular books and peer-reviewed papers authored by Egyptologists. Again, had you read Vyse's journal, and which I mentioned in my post, it is absolutely clear that the finding of the graffiti was not of great importance or interest to Howard Vyse himself. Like I said in my post, Vyse spends quite a lot more time writing about his explorations of the so-called air shafts and Campbell's Tomb. But to be sure, when it comes to the professional literature, I guarantee you Vyse is little more than a footnote. If you doubt this, feel free to read a dozen or so different books on the Great Pyramid and see how many times Vyse is mentioned. You might need a magnifying glass, as it were.

It just struck me as I was writing this, but the great irony here is Vyse's immortality in fringe circles. The fringe, in its general paranoia and penchant for misrepresentation, spends far more time obsessing over Vyse than legitimate historians do. So in a sense, Harsh, you and folks like Scott are a great deal more responsible for sustaining Vyse's name. Sitchin was the genesis of this falderal, but we've seen without a doubt how Sitchin falsified evidence and misrepresented the written record, so Sitchin need not be taken seriously. Not that he ever was taken seriously.

Yes, he certainly was. Vyse is definitely not my favorite person among the early explorers of Egypt, but I will not be swayed about character assassinations that cannot be linked to events at Giza. This is a diversion from the historical record of Giza exploration, and serves no useful purpose. The only real thing I dislike about Vyse is his method of exploration: blasting powder.

But you seem to be singling out Vyse as a "treasure seeker" as though he was unique in that regard. The truth is, historical investigations were very much in their infancy when Vyse was there (1837), and the treasure seekers considerably outnumbered the legitimate historians. Much the same was true when Petrie was there sixty years later. Most "archaeologists" digging in Egypt in Vyse's time were more accurately antiquarians, which is a euphemism for treasure seeker. This was pretty much the case all over the Mediterranean world in those early days. Think Heinrich Schliemann and Hissarlik, but that's a whole other story.

Irrespective of what time period it was, since the bar is raised currently, any information put out by dubious characters like Vyse should be reinterpreted. I am in agreement with you that in those times there was no mainstream and stupid people would claim fanciful things which would be thought to actual fact. Max Mueller and Vyse are prime examples of such idiots.

My issue is that information reported by such characters still constitutes the thought process of the modern mainstream. Fallacies perpretated by these fraudsters are still governing the line of thought of our current mainstream...for eg- the Aryan Invasion theory proposed by Max Mueller was based on jack squat and the theory continued for scores of years after his death right up till recently.

To put it in simple terms:

Would you trust a report filed by Von Daniken about the great pyramids, if he paints and then reports flying saucers on the walls inside? Believing Vyse would be an equally big mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

SC: For about the tenth time: The Khufu Cartouche (AND Khnum Khuf Cartouche) was Published FIVE YEARS BEFORE Howard-Vyse went to Egypt by Italian Egyptologist, Rosellini. See HERE.

SC

You are refering to #2 and #3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

Howard-Vyse remains a character of dubious moral integrity. This is clearly demonstrated by his corrupt practices in the Beverley election, buying 932 votes (from a total of 1010 cast in his favour). That is 932 crimes committed by Howard-Vyse. This is nothing less than Howard-Vyse committing fraud on a massve scale. And there are also the charges of fraud levelled against him by one of his own workers at Giza, Humphries Brewer. The leopard doesn't change its spots. Admittedly, there is only secondary evidence of this damming allegation from Walter Allen's 'notes' but if we are to discard secondary evidence in this regard then we might as well discard much of our history that has been built upon original primary sources (and secondary sources) that are now long lost to us I see little reason for Walter Allen to have fabricated this allegation. Howard-Vyse, well he's a different leopard.

No, Howard-Vyse does not make a big song and dance about the discovery of the inscriptions. But to have done so would only have served to draw unwanted questions. Better that others realise the significance of his 'discovery' than he proclaim it himself for to have done so would impart his awareness of such inscriptions and he wouldn't want anyone knowing that. I am reminded of a scene from the British sitcom, Fawlty Towers

Basil: What is this, Manuel?

Manuel: Mr Fawlty - I know nothing. I know nothing.

Yes - it is easier to convince by projecting an air of complete ignorance and by feigning disinterest. I can imagine the scene back in the hectic days of 1837:

Birch:Congratulations Colonel Howard-Vyse, Sir. You have found the name of the builder of this great monument. Well done, sir!

Howard-Vyse;Really? Well isn't that just dandy! What is his name?

The activities of Howard-Vyse and his cohorts in G3 is also highly questionable and reeks of an attempt at deception.

It is POSSIBLE that Howard-Vyse COULD have perpetrated such a fraud in these chambers of G1 (and it would not have been too difficult a task). It certainly wasn't the impossible task that many on this Board have long believed it to have been. Given that the leopard doesn't change its spots and given the stench that surrounds this whole question, I think that the only true and proper way forward is that the 'Coroner re-opens the case', that the 'body is exhumed' and a fresh forensic assessment is made of these markings. It is the only reasonable and responsible way forward. Failure to do so will only permit the stench around this issue to linger and fester ad infinitum. And I do not think anyone here wants that.

Bottom line, considerable doubt has been cast over Howard-Vyse personally and his claimed discovery at Giza and that doubt should be removed if, for no other reason, than to exonerate him personally and to vindicate his claimed discovery.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irna

Are you suggesting that Walter Allen made this up? What would his motives have been? The "notes" make some remarks that are entirely verifiable thereby conferring credibility upon the original source.

Speaking of "remarks entirely verifiable conferring credibility upon the original source" in Allen's notes, did you actually verify some of these remarks? Did you find independant confirmations of Brewer working for Howard Vyse, or having a dispute with Raven and Hill? What exactly do you deem "entirely verifiable"?

Contrary to what you say, there are some inconsistencies in Allen's notes. Let's take for instance the fact that, according to these notes, "Humfrey recieved prize for bridge he designed in Vienna over Danube" (sic). I was unable to find any bridge in Vienna designed by a Mr. Brewer. But I found this: http://www.ebooksrea...ical--cih.shtml :

Submitting

plans for the great bridge across the Danube

River.which unites the two cities of Buda and Pesth,

in Hungary, the feasibility of construction of wliich,

was much doubted by engineers, he w.as awarded

the prize and built the bridge, which is a marvel

of skill. He was also the author of the Thames

tunnel at London, and in 1849 came to America

So that it seems that the memory of Allen's mother of what she was told by a relative about Brewer is not very precise.

But, what is more, it seems that even the text above written by a local historian in 1890 is not very reliable. The bridge in Budapest is this one: http://en.wikipedia....dge_(Budapest). Brewer is nowhere to be found among the designers and constructors; same for the Thames Tunnel (http://en.wikipedia....i/Thames_Tunnel); and you may notice that Brewer, born in 1818, would have been a very precocious engineer if he had been the author of the Thames Tunnel (designed in 1825) and of the Chain Bridge (designed in 1839)...

It seems that a whole "family legend" arose around Brewer already in the XIXth century, somewhat amplifying his achievements while still in Europe... and there are some other inconsistencies in Allen's notes that you may look for.

So no, Allen's notes are not "credible" nor reliable. Testis unus testis nullus, moreover when you don't even have a proper testimony.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irna

SC: For about the tenth time: The Khufu Cartouche (AND Khnum Khuf Cartouche) was Published FIVE YEARS BEFORE Howard-Vyse went to Egypt by Italian Egyptologist, Rosellini. See HERE.

But Rosellini thought that the two cartouche were from different kings: he ascribes the number two on your link to Khufu/Suphis/Cheops (see page 128-129), and the number 3 to another king, whom he calls "Senesciufo" and whom he relates to Chephren (page 130-131) and deems the brother of Khufu. Why would Howard Vyse, had he decided to copy the cartouche of Khufu in Rosellini, have copied the name of a second king???

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

We're all doing essentially the same thing because there is almost no evidence

at all. Most of the reason there's no evidence is the simple fact that more than 4500

years has erased the evidence but there's also 4000 years of tourists carrying off

souvenirs as well as "scientists", kings, and archaeologists removing various things.

Unquestionably true, and one of Zahi Hawass' main initiatives was to stop the black market - even going as far as negotiating the return to Egypt of many artifacts that long had been held by collectors and museums, some of them for over a hundered years.

One of the biggest frustrations of alts is that Egyptoilogy controls these sites and is not gathering the evidence to prove or disprove anything at all. We have very sophis-

ticated chemical tests now days that could virtually pinpoint the source of the iron in

these markings and could easily show whether they are from different eras.

1. Nobody actually doubts that Kuhfu built the Great Pyramid. Even Ancient Egyptians didn't doubt it, and we know it.

2. The approximate age of the Great Pyramid is well known, owing to two different radiocarbon dating assays. Because of this, it makes perfect sense not to waste time and money on dating flakes of paint stuck to the inside.

3. The possibility of pinpointing the source of the ochre used as paint exists, maybe. However, you can't date iron radiometrically, except to date its formation in the crust of the Earth, and even then, we're talking about iron in magma (relatively new, IOW.) Ocre is basically clay. How old do you think the iron oxide would be in a deposit like clay? Clay itself is made over hundreds of millions of years, formed from the fine remains of long-weathered rock.

Or, do you think it likely that Vyse sent off to some far-away place to get some red clay?

A final note, wasn't it dead insects that were identified as covering the floor of one chamber?

I don't understand how there can be any question about so simple a thing. This throws

the entire subject of the pyramids into a deeper blackness and mystery if we can't even

keep the basics straight.

"We" are a bunch of posters on an internet board. Do you think that Egyptology doesn't know what was in the residue that was found? Has no other such residue ever been found on the floors of Ancient Egyptian buildings and tombs?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Unquestionably true, and one of Zahi Hawass' main initiatives was to stop the black market - even going as far as negotiating the return to Egypt of many artifacts that long had been held by collectors and museums, some of them for over a hundered years.

1. Nobody actually doubts that Kuhfu built the Great Pyramid. Even Ancient Egyptians didn't doubt it, and we know it.

2. The approximate age of the Great Pyramid is well known, owing to two different radiocarbon dating assays. Because of this, it makes perfect sense not to waste time and money on dating flakes of paint stuck to the inside.

3. The possibility of pinpointing the source of the ochre used as paint exists, maybe. However, you can't date iron radiometrically, except to date its formation in the crust of the Earth, and even then, we're talking about iron in magma (relatively new, IOW.) Ocre is basically clay. How old do you think the iron oxide would be in a deposit like clay? Clay itself is made over hundreds of millions of years, formed from the fine remains of long-weathered rock.

Or, do you think it likely that Vyse sent off to some far-away place to get some red clay?

"We" are a bunch of posters on an internet board. Do you think that Egyptology doesn't know what was in the residue that was found? Has no other such residue ever been found on the floors of Ancient Egyptian buildings and tombs?

Harte

Actually Vyse had this to say on the matter, from Journal 1 page 252 of the PDF:

Some of this sediment, which was sent to the French establishment near Cairo, was said to contain ligneous particles. When analysed in England, it was supposed to consist of the exuviae of insects; but as the deposition was equally diffused over the floor, and extremely like the substance found on the 25th instant at the Second Pyramid, it was most probably composed of particles of decayed stone.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

But Rosellini thought that the two cartouche were from different kings: he ascribes the number two on your link to Khufu/Suphis/Cheops (see page 128-129), and the number 3 to another king, whom he calls "Senesciufo" and whom he relates to Chephren (page 130-131) and deems the brother of Khufu. Why would Howard Vyse, had he decided to copy the cartouche of Khufu in Rosellini, have copied the name of a second king???

I told y'all we needed more from this guy!

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

But Rosellini thought that the two cartouche were from different kings: he ascribes the number two on your link to Khufu/Suphis/Cheops (see page 128-129), and the number 3 to another king, whom he calls "Senesciufo" and whom he relates to Chephren (page 130-131) and deems the brother of Khufu. Why would Howard Vyse, had he decided to copy the cartouche of Khufu in Rosellini, have copied the name of a second king???

Excellent point, Irna.

Yet another nail. That ol' coffin of the hoax myth is in tatters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

This site by the unabashed Egypt-apologist, Frank Doernenburg, has been around for a number of years and is often referenced by the Sitchin bashers on this Board and elsewhere as proof-positive of Sitchin being the forger and not Howard-Vyse & Co.

But one thing is clearly visible: in both sources, Vyse and Perring, the small structure in the circle are three horizontal lines. Both pictures unmistakably show a "Kh" and not a "Re". And while we can see that Sitchins small picture on the left comes from Vyses report, we can also see that his "enlargement" on the right is no enlargement at all, but a new picture, probably drawn by Sitchin himself - and faked! Sitchin did not find a fake, he produced one himself to get his faker story.

This fake has not been detected by alternative authors so far, another sign of the lack of verification done in alternative "science".

The books of Perring and Vyse demolish en passant another excuse of Sitchin-defenders. Some people claim, that the correct inscriptions in the relievement chambers are fakes, done by Egyptologists after Sitchin had found out about the spelling mistake. So Egyptologists went into the chamber, armed with a pot of red color and a brush, correcting the mistake Hill had made. And this is the reason why the paint is not carbon dated - the fake would show.

But since the books published in 1839 and 1842 already show the correct spelling, this scenario is simply impossible - only a working time machine could help here.

SC: What on earth is this person Doernenburg talking about? Let us take a look at what Sitchin actually states in his book, Journeys to the Mythical Past:

The British and Austrian consuls were invited to witness the discovery; Mr Hill copied the inscriptions on parchment sheets, and all present authenticated them with their signatures. The documents were then sent to the British Museum in London, and the unprecedented discovery was announced for the whole world to know. Since no one had entered those upper chambers from the time when the pyramid was erected, here was unchallenged proof of its builder’s name! …

As I was poring over Vyse’s printed diary, something odd struck me: The Royal name he showed was inscribed differently than on the Inventory Stela; instead of diagonal lines (a “sieve”) inside a circle which reads KH (and thus KH-U-F-U), Vyse’s finds were written with a circle with just a dot inside (fig. 19). That reads not KH but RA, the sacred name of Egypt’s supreme god. Thus the name Vyse reported was not Khufu but RA-u-f-u…

In 1978, visiting the British Museum, I asked to see the Vyse parchments. It took some doing, as no one had asked for them as far as anyone could recall. But the Hill Facsimiles (as they were catalogued) were found and shown to me—a bundle tied with yellowing-white ribbon. The authenticated parchments were there, the way they reached the museum more than a century earlier; and the misspelling was also there: In no instance was the “Kh” inscribed correctly as a sieve with diagonal lines; instead there was a dot or a smudge inside a circle, spelling “Ra”. – Sitchin, Journeys to the Mythical Past, p.25-26

In looking at Howard-Vyse’s “printed diary” (presumably Howard-Vyse’s printed book based on his written diary), the circle glyphs of the name ‘Khufu’ within the 'Relieving Chambers' are not at all clearly the sieve disk (they are too small to make out clearly and some do look like a circumpunct) so one can understand why Sitchin would seek out the original material in the British museum to have a better look. But this is not the point. The image below is from Sitchin’s book and shows the sieve and Ra circles—he clearly understood the difference.

Hills-Facsimilie.jpg

Now do you notice from the image above what Sitchin was actually comparing? He wasn’t comparing Vyse’s hand-written diary (or printed book) nor was he comparing the drawings made by Perring as claimed in Doernenburg’s site. No—Sitchin sought out and studied the original facsimiles made by Mr Hill (he's marked 'Hill's inscription' right there on his diagram that he copied from Hill's facsimile). It is these facsimiles from HILL that Sitchin checked and is comparing—NOT Perring and NOT Vyse’s handwritten diary. And, according to Sitchin, the facsimiles that Hill drew (and which had been authenticated by several people as true copies of the chamber glyphs) did not, according to Sitchin, present a correct KH sieve glyph but rather was presented with the circle with a centre circumpunct—Ra.

The question now is—does anyone have any photos of the facsimiles made by Hill? And, if so, do these bear out what Sitchin is saying? If Sitchin is correct in this then it will raise all manner of real difficult questions. Why, if Hill's drawings are true, do we have Ra-ufu in these chambers? The issue seems not so much to be that the Vyse and Perring drawings are different to what Sitchin presented in his book but why the Vyse and Perring drawings are apparently different to those of Mr Hill (Mr Hill’s having been authenticated as true by several people)?

Perhaps I am missing something here. I realise that images of Hill's facsimiles is desirable here but I came up blank. Anyone care to respond?

SC

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.