Giza Pyramid construction

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Which then raises the (ever so cunningly slightly reworded) question of “what was Vyse trying to achieve by adding the cartouches to the stones?”

He was making a very clever 3 D puzzle that contains his secret message to Queen Victoria express his undying love.

 

Turn it upside down and drink a few quarts of ale-----and you'll see it.

[Hanslune]

5 hours ago, Piney said:

Is Martin still banned?

I know Harry is because he couldn't shut the **** up about Trump.

Harry has a job now so maybe he'll calm down a bit.

[Piney]

7 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Harry has a job now so maybe he'll calm down a bit.

...............

  LMAO! HARRY???? CALM DOWN????? 

[Hanslune]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

...............

  LMAO! HARRY???? CALM DOWN????? 

Yes real life will beat some calm into him. You know he was college student now he's teaching kids history - that will calm him down or he'll get arrested for chasing them around with a sledge hammer.

[jaylemurph]

23 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yes real life will beat some calm into him. You know he was college student now he's teaching kids history - that will calm him down or he'll get arrested for chasing them around with a sledge hammer.

If my career has taught me anything so far, it's that petty bigotry is a building block of academia.

If it's taught me two things, the second is that sledgehammers are a vital component of historiographic education.

--Jaylemurph

 

[Windowpane]

9 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: Oh the 'they were all stupid and didn't know what they were doing" argument rears its ugly head. Mistaken? Seriously? Is that the best you can come up with? 

...

Hermione--if this was a genuine mistake then it was an EASY mistake to correct (if they had wanted to). Bit of sandpaper over the 9 for a minute or so, bit of paint and voila--the mistaken 9 becomes the correct 6. And this WOULD have been important to Vyse to have this correct were it a mistake. But NO--they left it there. Intentionally. Because that is what he WANTED. For a REASON Hermione.

 

It's been explained on numerous occasions that Alford's "secret cache" proposal, to which your theories are forced to resort, credits Vyse with a real discovery of royal names which would have brought him kudos without his taking crazy risks for little additional gain.

You don't suggest any credible motivation, apart from Vyse wanting to keep the pyramids within the chronology of Archbishop James Ussher (as discussed in Hoax) - despite the fact that Vyse makes no mention of Ussher in his published work.

 

SC wrote:

<< Oh the 'they were all stupid and didn't know what they were doing" argument rears its ugly head. Mistaken? Seriously? Is that the best you can come up with? Sure--Colonel Vyse is writing a diary and he doesn't have the foggiest what day of the week it is and neither, according to you, does Mr Hill. They're all just stupid, staggering about Giza asking each other "What date is it today?" Mr Hill writes a '9' when he knows full well that L.A. Chamber was open days earlier. Give it a rest Hermione.

 

It was the merest discrepancy, open to a range of innocent explanations.  If Vyse really had intended to engage in forgery and mendacity, surely he would have made arrangements that didn't leave him open to accusations of deceit?

 

Allow me to remind you that you have Vyse and his assistants, in their supposed role as forgers, making no end of mistakes.  Despite what you say, however, neither Vyse nor his colleagues were stupid. Raven, Hill and especially Perring were all highly intelligent.  No one but you is making stupidity a precondition of making a mistake.  No one but you is framing this in terms of Vyse getting it wrong in writing his "diary".  On the contrary, it was most likely when he was writing for publication (which he did in 1838) that, on consulting his journal, he discovered the correct information, which then found its way into Operations.

 

This effectively refutes your allegation that he lied.  As I said above, surely, if he intended to deceive, he would at least be consistent about providing misleading information.

 

SC wrote:

<< Mr Hill writes a '9' when he knows full well

 

So now we go from "would have known" to "knows full well".   But what evidence is there for any ill-intention on Mr. Hill's part?  Vyse writes that, on 4th May (Thursday), Hill returned to Cairo with Captain Demay (I: 239).  It was a 3-hour ride between Giza and Cairo, and Hill was also engaged in running his hotel (his wife was likely pregnant at the time).  He is not noted as being at Giza until he went back there with Vyse on 8th May.

 

In other words, Hill was not at Giza on 6th May; the initial breaking-through into Lady Arbuthnot's would not have left the same impression on his mind as it might have left on the minds of those who were present.

 

SC wrote:

<< I suppose though if that lame excuse helps you to sleep at night then, by all means, knock yourself out. But seriously--you are not going to convince any reasonably minded person with that desperate twaddle. And by reasonably-minded I do not, of course, include the hidebound ideologues that usually frequent this forum and who would rather drink p*** than ever admit that Vyse did anything wrong. But I suspect you know it.

 

Er ... Scott: with the best will in the world, this is simply bluster ...

 

SC wrote:

<<  Rubbish Hermione. He LIED. And the evidence PROVES he lied. Good luck trying to convince reasonable people that Mr Hill merely made a "minor mistake" - SEVEN TIMES. And SIX of those verified by Vyse himself. Hermione--it was an EASY mistake to correct (if they had wanted to). Bit of sandpaper over the 9 for a minute or so, bit of paint and voila--the mistaken 9 becomes the correct 6. But NO--they left it there. For a REASON Hermione.

 

But where is the evidence that any such thing happened?  Why, on your assumptions, would Vyse go on to specify the correct date (May 6th) in his "official" account, the one you make all-important when it suits you?

 

Why would anyone correct a mistake which no one noticed?  That’s the reason, Scott.  It was a minor discrepancy: and no one noticed.

 

Again, finally: what proof do you have that Vyse lied? 

 

What proof?

 

[Windowpane]

10 hours ago, Jon101 said:

...

The effort, persistence and sheer bloody mindedness that Mr. Creighton has shown over the years could have achieved great things if directed down some more fruitful path.

I think you have an excellent point there.  For example, the first chapters of an early fictional work by Scott, Something went Bump, aren't without entertainment value. 

Moreover, of possible interest to this discussion is the portrayal in that work of an ambitious, amoral, scheming Conservative politician by the name of Sir David Thorn.  One cannot help but wonder if Scott, on later encountering Vyse, a real-life anti-Reform politician, came to see him as cast in the same mould ...

[Vaz]

47 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

It's been explained on numerous occasions that Alford's "secret cache" proposal, to which your theories are forced to resort, credits Vyse with a real discovery of royal names which would have brought him kudos without his taking crazy risks for little additional gain.

You don't suggest any credible motivation, apart from Vyse wanting to keep the pyramids within the chronology of Archbishop James Ussher (as discussed in Hoax) - despite the fact that Vyse makes no mention of Ussher in his published work.

 

SC wrote:

<< Oh the 'they were all stupid and didn't know what they were doing" argument rears its ugly head. Mistaken? Seriously? Is that the best you can come up with? Sure--Colonel Vyse is writing a diary and he doesn't have the foggiest what day of the week it is and neither, according to you, does Mr Hill. They're all just stupid, staggering about Giza asking each other "What date is it today?" Mr Hill writes a '9' when he knows full well that L.A. Chamber was open days earlier. Give it a rest Hermione.

 

It was the merest discrepancy, open to a range of innocent explanations.  If Vyse really had intended to engage in forgery and mendacity, surely he would have made arrangements that didn't leave him open to accusations of deceit?

 

Allow me to remind you that you have Vyse and his assistants, in their supposed role as forgers, making no end of mistakes.  Despite what you say, however, neither Vyse nor his colleagues were stupid. Raven, Hill and especially Perring were all highly intelligent.  No one but you is making stupidity a precondition of making a mistake.  No one but you is framing this in terms of Vyse getting it wrong in writing his "diary".  On the contrary, it was most likely when he was writing for publication (which he did in 1838) that, on consulting his journal, he discovered the correct information, which then found its way into Operations.

 

This effectively refutes your allegation that he lied.  As I said above, surely, if he intended to deceive, he would at least be consistent about providing misleading information.

 

SC wrote:

<< Mr Hill writes a '9' when he knows full well

 

So now we go from "would have known" to "knows full well".   But what evidence is there for any ill-intention on Mr. Hill's part?  Vyse writes that, on 4th May (Thursday), Hill returned to Cairo with Captain Demay (I: 239).  It was a 3-hour ride between Giza and Cairo, and Hill was also engaged in running his hotel (his wife was likely pregnant at the time).  He is not noted as being at Giza until he went back there with Vyse on 8th May.

 

In other words, Hill was not at Giza on 6th May; the initial breaking-through into Lady Arbuthnot's would not have left the same impression on his mind as it might have left on the minds of those who were present.

 

SC wrote:

<< I suppose though if that lame excuse helps you to sleep at night then, by all means, knock yourself out. But seriously--you are not going to convince any reasonably minded person with that desperate twaddle. And by reasonably-minded I do not, of course, include the hidebound ideologues that usually frequent this forum and who would rather drink p*** than ever admit that Vyse did anything wrong. But I suspect you know it.

 

Er ... Scott: with the best will in the world, this is simply bluster ...

 

SC wrote:

<<  Rubbish Hermione. He LIED. And the evidence PROVES he lied. Good luck trying to convince reasonable people that Mr Hill merely made a "minor mistake" - SEVEN TIMES. And SIX of those verified by Vyse himself. Hermione--it was an EASY mistake to correct (if they had wanted to). Bit of sandpaper over the 9 for a minute or so, bit of paint and voila--the mistaken 9 becomes the correct 6. But NO--they left it there. For a REASON Hermione.

 

But where is the evidence that any such thing happened?  Why, on your assumptions, would Vyse go on to specify the correct date (May 6th) in his "official" account, the one you make all-important when it suits you?

 

Why would anyone correct a mistake which no one noticed?  That’s the reason, Scott.  It was a minor discrepancy: and no one noticed.

 

Again, finally: what proof do you have that Vyse lied? 

 

What proof?

 

It's  in the quality of the so called Cartouche.  It's the only smoking gun you need.  It doesn't correlate with the amazing construction feat the GP is.  No further proof required.

It's a classic case of people just believing what they want to believe because it is convenient.  

Edited November 2, 2019 by Vaz

[Vaz]

11 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: Oh the 'they were all stupid and didn't know what they were doing" argument rears its ugly head. Mistaken? Seriously? Is that the best you can come up with? Sure--Colonel Vyse is writing a DIARY (you know, that thing with dates and days of the week in it) and he apparently doesn't have the foggiest what day of the week it was when the chamber was opened and neither, according to you, does Mr Hill. They're all just stupid, staggering about Giza asking each other "What date is it today?" Mr Hill writes a '9' when he knows full well that L.A. Chamber was open days earlier. Hill seemed to know what day of the week it was when you had him giving the date as the date he painted the inscription (as opposed to the - supposed - opening date of the chamber). But the moment I prove to you the purpose of the date he painted on that wall wasn't what you claimed (i.e. the date Hill painted the inscription) then suddenly he loses all his marbles and is making mistakes with the date in the chamber because now it SUITS you, Hermione to say that. He knows what date it is. Then he doesn't know what date it is. FGS - listen to yourself.

I suppose though if that lame excuse helps you to sleep at night then, by all means, knock yourself out. But seriously--you are not going to convince any reasonably minded person with that desperate twaddle. And by reasonably-minded I do not, of course, include the hidebound ideologues that usually frequent this forum and who would rather drink p*** than ever admit that Vyse did anything wrong. But I suspect you know that.

SC: Give it a rest Hermione. He LIED. And the evidence PROVES he lied. Good luck trying to convince reasonable minded people that Mr Hill merely made a "minor mistake" - SEVEN TIMES and nobody once spotted it. And SIX of those 9th May dates were verified by Vyse himself. Hermione--if this was a genuine mistake then it was an EASY mistake to correct (if they had wanted to). Bit of sandpaper over the 9 for a minute or so, bit of paint and voila--the mistaken 9 becomes the correct 6. And this WOULD have been important to Vyse to have this correct were it a mistake. But NO--they left it there. Intentionally. Because that is what he WANTED. For a REASON Hermione.

 

Wow.  I didn't know any of this so many thanks for providing the evidence.  I personally never believed that such evidence was required knowing the character of the dynamite archaeologist, since the quality of the markings is sufficient to cast doubt for most alternative investigators.  This however adds icing to the cake.  

Edited November 2, 2019 by Vaz

[Scott Creighton]

2 hours ago, Windowpane said:

 

Quote

Hermione: It was the merest discrepancy, open to a range of innocent explanations.

SC: Nonsense. It was premeditated fraud. Mr Hill doesn’t merely turn up in L.A. Chamber for a slap-dash job. It would have been planned beforehand. And the most important element of that planning would have been the actual text. Hill would have to have consulted Vyse on the question of the inscription Vyse wanted placed upon that wall. This simply stands to reason that Hill would have to ask Vyse what text he wanted on the wall of that chamber. So Vyse gives Mr Hill the text to paint onto the wall, perhaps even writing it on a slip of paper so that Mr Hill could refer to it precisely to avoid any unnecessary mistakes. That is not an unreasonable scenario. Your position relies upon Vyse and Hill not knowing the date that instruction from Vyse was issued to Hill. Utterly preposterous.

Let's imagine the scene:

Giza plateau, close to the Great Pyramid (10:20am, 9th May, 1837). Mr Hill approaches Colonel Vyse's tent and enters.

"I'm gong up to paint the dedication inscription in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber, Colonel Vyse. What would you like it to say?"

"Oh--just put Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber on the top line and underneath put the opening date of the chamber. Thank you, Mr Hill."

"The opening date--that was three days ago so that would be the 6th May, the night we all went to Cairo, right?"

"Er--no, my good man. It would be the 9th."

"The 9th? But Colonel Vyse, today's the 9th."

"The 9th, Mr Hill. Off you go now."

"As you will, Colonel. The 9th it is."

Over and above which--this inscription Mr Hill was about to paint into the chamber was very important—it’s the Dedication Inscription for goodness sake, not some insignificant doodle. As such, it is not unreasonable to assert that Mr Hill would have been ultra careful to ensure he got what Vyse wanted painted onto the wall absolutely correct. And the fact that Mr Hill then went on to write this 9^th May chamber opening date upon six of his drawing from this chamber and no less than 5 witnesses, including Vyse, agreed to it, is good supporting evidence that this was the date given to Mr Hill by Vyse; this was the date Vyse instructed him to place in this chamber.

To assert that this chamber date was a “minor mistake” that not one single person noticed (not Vyse, or Perring, or Raven or Hill) is simply not a credible position.

Quote

Hermione: If Vyse really had intended to engage in forgery and mendacity, surely he would have made arrangements that didn't leave him open to accusations of deceit?

SC: The dedication inscription on this wall of L.A. Chamber stands as testimony to Vyse’s scheming; a ‘legacy’ of what was meant to be; a (partially) aborted deception.

Quote

Hermione: Why, on your assumptions, would Vyse go on to specify the correct date (May 6th) in his "official" account, the one you make all-important when it suits you?

SC: As far as I’m concerned, Hermione, both of Vyse’s accounts are equally important for it is by comparing and contrasting both that we find these anomalies. We find in the private journal material entirely redacted from the published, sanitised account. But you won’t know why Vyse went on to specify the correct date because you and your co-author gave up reading the private journal. Had you persevered you would have found the answer to your own question as to why Vyse reverted back to the 6^th May in his published account and why the quarry marks then ended up ‘cut adrift’ from the true 6^th May opening date. But you’ll just have to wait for HOAX2 to learn about that.

Quote

Hermione: Why would anyone correct a mistake which no one noticed?  That’s the reason, Scott.  It was a minor discrepancy: and no one noticed.

SC: I asked you in my previous post—present your proof that this was a mistake.

Quote

Hermione: Again, finally: what proof do you have that Vyse lied? 

SC: This goes to reasonable doubt, Hermione. Your position is that Hill made a mistake with this inscription and you present zero evidence to support that position. On my side we can clearly see that Hill got the other chamber dedication inscriptions correct, so that goes to his reliability and credibility. He also wrote that L.A. Chamber opening date six other times that were signed by several witnesses, including Vyse himself. That also goes towards Mr Hill’s credibility i.e. that he made no mistake. If this were a court of law I am convinced that your “mistake” crutch would be rejected in favour of Mr Hill’s clearly attested reliability. The jury would believe Mr Hill followed Vyse’s orders. In short, Vyse lied and this dedication inscription stands in testimony to his deception.

Now, at the end of the day you can continue to assert your “minor mistake” crutch but I doubt few reasonable thinking people, considering all the evidence here, would agree with you. But what your crutch does not do is remove my interpretation of why this anomaly exists in this chamber i.e. as part of an attempted deception by Vyse. To do that you will have to actually prove with good evidence that this was indeed a mistake made by Mr Hill. Good luck with that.

 

SC

Edited November 2, 2019 by Scott Creighton

[Harte]

3 hours ago, Windowpane said:

 

Why would anyone correct a mistake which no one noticed?  That’s the reason, Scott.  It was a minor discrepancy: and no one noticed.

 

This reminds me of the Mahabharata.

Upon publishing one of the first English translations, the translator's name was transposed with the publisher's name. The book went out to sale that way and now we have some of  the fringers clinging to the "Pratap Chandra Roy translation" over that of Ganguli when they are one and the same texts. Roy was the publisher and Ganguli was the translator he hired.

Neither the author nor the publisher noticed this obvious (and far more serious than any date included in a text) error before putting the book out.

Or, maybe Roy LIED!

Big name SciFi author Larry Niven had the Earth turning the wrong way in one of his novels. He had editors. Nobody noticed.

Or, maybe Niven LIED!

Harte

Edited November 2, 2019 by Harte
by cracky

[Windowpane]

2 hours ago, Vaz said:

 ...  the quality of the markings is sufficient to cast doubt for most alternative investigators. ...

Why is the quality of markings scrawled for the purposes of organisation of labour a problem?  What evidence have the "alternative investigators" found to negate the findings of Ann Macy Roth, Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom, pg. 125 (a subject previously discussed several times on this forum)?

[Harte]

6 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

Why is the quality of markings scrawled for the purposes of organisation of labour a problem?  What evidence have the "alternative investigators" found to negate the findings of Ann Macy Roth, Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom, pg. 125 (a subject previously discussed several times on this forum)?

Especially when you can find similar markings in other ruins, as well as on some stones laying out on the ground.

Check out the "Drunkards of Menkaure."

Harte

[Windowpane]

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Nonsense ...

It was premeditated fraud. Mr Hill doesn’t merely turn up in L.A. Chamber for a slap-dash job. It would have been planned beforehand. And the most important element of that planning would have been the actual text. Hill would have to have consulted Vyse on the question of the inscription Vyse wanted placed upon that wall. This simply stands to reason that Hill would have to ask Vyse what text he wanted on the wall of that chamber. So Vyse gives Mr Hill the text to paint onto the wall, perhaps even writing it on a slip of paper so that Mr Hill could refer to it precisely to avoid any unnecessary mistakes. That is not an unreasonable scenario. Your position relies upon Vyse and Hill not knowing the date that instruction from Vyse was issued to Hill. Utterly preposterous.

 

Again, you repeat: "would have."  But evidence is required to support this perfect conditional.  Once more: where is this evidence?

 

SC wrote:

<< Over and above which--this inscription Mr Hill was about to paint into the chamber was very important—it’s the Dedication Inscription for goodness sake, not some insignificant doodle. As such, it is not unreasonable to assert that Mr Hill would have been ultra careful to ensure he got what Vyse wanted painted onto the wall absolutely correct. And the fact that Mr Hill then went on to write this 9th May chamber opening date upon six of his drawing from this chamber and no less than 5 witnesses, including Vyse, agreed to it, is good supporting evidence that this was the date given to Mr Hill by Vyse; this was the date Vyse instructed him to place in this chamber.

 

Well .... it wasn't really a "dedication Inscription" as such.  Vyse was not the builder of the pyramid: it was not for him to "dedicate" it to anyone.  Calling the chambers after different people was a way of distinguishing between them, which might have been useful for subsequent historical discussion.  And, as each of the people was a member of the upper echelons of British society, it perhaps represented a sort of territorial statement.  (Regrettable, in my view: I think the chambers should not have had any 19th or 20th century notations at all placed in or on them: but what's done is done ... )

 

Getting back to the main point: it is "not unreasonable to suppose" that forgers would have been "ultra careful" - and yet you are happy to suppose that Vyse and Hill as forgers made no end of mistakes.  You give us a scenario in which Vyse, hell-bent on deception, insisted on a lie on the wall of the chamber and then, in his published work, which was going to be seen by many more than would ever actually enter the chamber, gave the correct information.  Is that reasonable?

 

SC wrote:

<< To assert that this chamber date was a “minor mistake” that not one single person noticed (not Vyse, or Perring, or Raven or Hill) is simply not a credible position.

 

Why would Perring have a particular opinion on the question?  Why would Hill notice, or be concerned about, his own mistake?   It was not as if these people had nothing else to think about (running a hotel, working for the Galloways, etc.) besides their other tasks at Giza.  Perring, for one, was busy surveying the chamber.  Hill (on Vyse's instructions) was copying the various inscriptions (of which there were "a great many") on a scale of 1:1.  Allow me to remind you also that, in 1837, the lighting in the (extremely uncomfortable) chambers would have been minimal at best.

 

SC wrote:

<< The dedication inscription on this wall of L.A. Chamber stands as testimony to Vyse’s scheming; a ‘legacy’ of what was meant to be; a (partially) aborted deception.

 

As noted above, calling it a "dedication inscription" is questionable.  The rest is mere assertion: repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

SC wrote:

<< As far as I’m concerned, Hermione, both of Vyse’s accounts are equally important for it is by comparing and contrasting both that we find these anomalies. We find in the private journal material entirely redacted from the published, sanitised account. But you won’t know why Vyse went on to specify the correct date because you and your co-author gave up reading the private journal. Had you persevered you would have found the answer to your own question as to why Vyse reverted back to the 6th May in his published account and why the quarry marks then ended up ‘cut adrift’ from the true 6th May opening date. But you’ll just have to wait for HOAX2 to learn about that.

 

Your allegation that my co-author "gave up reading the private journal" is false and has already been dealt with, as well you know.

 

We have also seen (in a thread you referenced recently) examples of Martin Stower's transcription done effectively "live".

 

And you will certainly also have seen this.

 

The rest of your statement is merely promissory.

 

SC wrote:

<<  I asked you in my previous post—present your proof that this was a mistake.

 

I asked you to present proof that Vyse lied.  You are the one purporting to have it and you are the one making the prior and more serious allegation.

 

SC wrote:

<< This goes to reasonable doubt, Hermione. Your position is that Hill made a mistake with this inscription and you present zero evidence to support that position. On my side we can clearly see that Hill got the other chamber dedication inscriptions correct, so that goes to his reliability and credibility. He also wrote that L.A. Chamber opening date six other times that were signed by several witnesses, including Vyse himself. That also goes towards Mr Hill’s credibility i.e. that he made no mistake. If this were a court of law I am convinced that your “mistake” crutch would be rejected in favour of Mr Hill’s clearly attested reliability. The jury would believe Mr Hill followed Vyse’s orders. In short, Vyse lied and this dedication inscription stands in testimony to his deception.

 

Now we have the "imaginary courtroom" ploy.  Scott, this is not an argument.  You are not an advocate and this is not a court of law.  Sorry to undeceive you.

 

SC wrote:

<< Now, at the end of the day you can continue to assert your “minor mistake” crutch but I doubt few reasonable thinking people, considering all the evidence here, would agree with you. But what your crutch does not do is remove my interpretation of why this anomaly exists in this chamber i.e. as part of an attempted deception by Vyse. To do that you will have to actually prove with good evidence that this was indeed a mistake made by Mr Hill. Good luck with that.

 

Were you as confident as you pretend to be in what you have already presented, Scott you would hardly be trying to add this feeble material to it.  Is this what readers can look forward to in HOAX2?  

[Scott Creighton]

The above is Hermann von Pückler-Muskau, a Prussian Prince who met Vyse at Giza in 1837 during his travels through North Africa. Pückler-Muskau went on to publish his travelogue some 5 years after Vyse had published his Operations. The prince was the first person (not Sitchin) to put into a publication his suspicions that the marks found by Vyse within the Great Pyramid were recent additions i.e. fraudulently placed there:

Source: https://archive.org/details/egyptundermehem00vongoog/page/n274

SC

[Scott Creighton]

24 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

My evidence is there Hermione--you just choose to blank it. Because it suits you to. It's a ploy you deploy often when you can't actually properly address the evidence.

Now, if you want your position (he made a "minor mistake") to have any credibility then you have to provide proof that Mr Hill made a mistake in writing a 9 instead of a 6, as you claim. That’s what you have to do. Currently the evidence is stacked in my favour so I respectfully suggest you get to it.

SC

Edited November 2, 2019 by Scott Creighton

[Vaz]

14 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

 

The above is Hermann von Pückler-Muskau, a Prussian Prince who met Vyse at Giza in 1837 during his travels through North Africa. Pückler-Muskau went on to publish his travelogue some 5 years after Vyse had published his Operations. The prince was the first person (not Sitchin) to put into a publication his suspicions that the marks found by Vyse within the Great Pyramid were recent additions i.e. fraudulently placed there:

Source: https://archive.org/details/egyptundermehem00vongoog/page/n274

SC

The speculation and debate on this is one thing.  Its quite another to base a significant part of Egyptian history on the basis of this suspicious scrawl and sell it to the world as facts, taught in schools for hundreds of years.  That's appalling behaviour by anyone's standards.

Here then we have an institution that purports to be a credible academic discipline, that is prepared to take any information, no matter how flimsy and sell it off as truth.  Is this institution credible?    

The Meyer papyrus which came later, also gives equally flimsy amounts of information, and yet again it was hailed as the most wonderful information at the time of it's discovery.  They appear to be building straw upon straw until the house is complete.  

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Vaz

[Vaz]

1 hour ago, Harte said:

Especially when you can find similar markings in other ruins, as well as on some stones laying out on the ground.

Check out the "Drunkards of Menkaure."

Harte

Are you seriously trying to sell the idea that the Pyramid builders were drunkards?  Really? Maybe for those piles of rubble that collapsed.  

If you can make the idea stick for the GP then please take the floor...................

Edited November 2, 2019 by Vaz

[kmt_sesh]

4 hours ago, Vaz said:

It's  in the quality of the so called Cartouche.  It's the only smoking gun you need.  It doesn't correlate with the amazing construction feat the GP is.  No further proof required.

It's a classic case of people just believing what they want to believe because it is convenient.  

The quality of the cartouche is wholly irrelevant. What training in the ancient writing system and language have you achieved to be equipped to evaluate such writing? The cartouches and other writing in those chambers are completely consistent with ancient Egyptian linear writing and graffiti one can see on so many monuments down through pharaonic history. The fact that they were left in sealed chambers around 2500 BCE reflects that they were never meant to be seen by public eyes. The  graffiti was not part of any formal state-sponsored decoration plan. The fact remains, no one in professional scholarship believes in the notion of a hoax.

[kmt_sesh]

20 minutes ago, Vaz said:

Are you seriously trying to sell the idea that the Pyramid builders were LYdrunkards?  Really? Maybe for those piles of rubble that collapsed.  

If you can make the idea stick for the GP then please take the floor...................

You can't evaluate this sort of thing from the perspective of a modern person with values and beliefs completely alien to the ancient Egyptian mind. They were, in fact, a people given to much drink and hard partying. We know from later writings that a hangover was an annoying but acceptable reason to miss a day of work. Harte is correct about that instance of graffiti. It exists and is a well-known example of how work gangs left behind their marks–just as we see in the relieving chambers of G1.

[Vaz]

14 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

You can't evaluate this sort of thing from the perspective of a modern person with values and beliefs completely alien to the ancient Egyptian mind. They were, in fact, a people given to much drink and hard partying. We know from later writings that a hangover was an annoying but acceptable reason to miss a day of work. Harte is correct about that instance of graffiti. It exists and is a well-known example of how work gangs left behind their marks–just as we see in the relieving chambers of G1.

Not a supportable hypothesis based on the immense technical achievement and craftsmanship that the GP is.  

Let common sense prevail, not more straw upon straw.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Vaz

[Vaz]

26 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

The quality of the cartouche is wholly irrelevant. What training in the ancient writing system and language have you achieved to be equipped to evaluate such writing? The cartouches and other writing in those chambers are completely consistent with ancient Egyptian linear writing and graffiti one can see on so many monuments down through pharaonic history. The fact that they were left in sealed chambers around 2500 BCE reflects that they were never meant to be seen by public eyes. The  graffiti was not part of any formal state-sponsored decoration plan. The fact remains, no one in professional scholarship believes in the notion of a hoax.

They were trained to cut precision granite, align an immense building to perfection, co-operate with the immense logistics of organisation and planning, assemble passages that vary to fractions of an inch acorss the entire length, cut small rectangular shafts that extend 100 metres or more to the oustside, achieve the awesome corbelled design of the grand gallery, and yet they wrote in the most childish scrawl ?

Let common sense prevail.  

[Hanslune]

26 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

The quality of the cartouche is wholly irrelevant. What training in the ancient writing system and language have you achieved to be equipped to evaluate such writing? The cartouches and other writing in those chambers are completely consistent with ancient Egyptian linear writing and graffiti one can see on so many monuments down through pharaonic history. The fact that they were left in sealed chambers around 2500 BCE reflects that they were never meant to be seen by public eyes. The  graffiti was not part of any formal state-sponsored decoration plan. The fact remains, no one in professional scholarship believes in the notion of a hoax.

That the AE used such marks as well markers is well documented: Like the marks found in the air/star shafts

[Hanslune]

4 minutes ago, Vaz said:

Not a supportable hypothesis based on the immense technical achievement and craftsmanship that the GP is.  

Let common sense prevail, not more straw upon straw.

So you're saying you know that the AE construction supervisors didn't walk around with a brush and tub of ocher paint to note the work so it could be counted or leave directive markings - so how do you know that?

[Vaz]

1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

That the AE used such marks as well markers is well documented: Like the marks found in the air/star shafts

No cartouche though and arguably not the same as the quarry marks.