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 -
Paul Hai

Giza Pyramid construction

1,175 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Piney
3 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Colonel Vyse knew the Khufu (Suphis) cartouche while he was on the ground at Giza in 1837– he draws it in his private journal several times and even refers to it as Suphis.

SC

So Herodotus lied and Zecharia Sitchen is right? 

No chance.....:lol:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Megaro

I do like the picture that Scott posted.  The detail is fantastic and provides some insight into pyramid construction.  However, I hope that this thread does not devolve into the Vyse forgery argument.  There is another fairly recent thread on that topic and it got locked due to bickering.  By the way, does anyone have anymore high res photos of the lower relieving chambers?  There are a few of Campbell's Chamber, but not a lot of public photos of the others.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
10 minutes ago, Piney said:

So Herodotus lied and Zecharia Sitchen is right? 

No chance.....:lol:

Irrelevant. This is about what Colonel Vyse did, not what Herodotus or Sitchin wrote. Just because Vyse perpetrated a fraud does not necessarily invalidate the view that Surid/Suphis/Khufu built the Great Pyramid. They’re two quite separate issues.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 minute ago, Scott Creighton said:

Irrelevant. This is about what Colonel Vyse did, not what Herodotus or Sitchin wrote. Just because Vyse perpetrated a fraud does not necessarily invalidate the view that Surid/Suphis/Khufu built the Great Pyramid. They’re two quite separate issues.

 Sitchin, who was caught in outright lies, was the first to concoct the theory. Herodotus recorded the actual history.  

There would be no gain in the so called "fraud" at the time therefore it's illogical. There would be gain by Sitchin, a known liar, therefore he's the liar. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

...

You can see Mr Hill's signature below-right of the dedication inscription. Hill painted this dedication inscription upon the southern wall of Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber. 

Now think it through.

As instructed, I've thought it through.

Vyse refers to the dedication on I: 256.  The inscription - in black paint, not red - was presumably inserted by Hill at Vyse's request; consequently, Hill placed his signature beneath.

So how does the presence of this signature indicate that Hill or any of Vyse's colleagues "probably assist[ed] ... in the forgery act"? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
42 minutes ago, Piney said:

 

 

Quote

Piney: Sitchin, who was caught in outright lies, was the first to concoct the theory.

SC: No doubt at all that Sitchin distorted evidence but we’re not talking about Sitchin’s evidence here. He's irrelevant to this discussion so why you keep bringing him up is a mystery to say the least. And no – Sitchin was not the first to suspect Colonel Vyse of likely having perpetrated a fraud at Giza.

 

Quote

Piney: Herodotus recorded the actual history.

SC: Allegedly.  

 

Quote

Piney: There would be no gain in the so called "fraud" at the time therefore it's illogical. There would be gain by Sitchin, a known liar, therefore he's the liar. 

SC: This isn’t about what Sitchin presented. Sitchin presented very little of the evidence I have uncovered in my own research. Seeking notoriety is a very human emotion. Vyse tells us umpteen times in his journals that he desired to make an important discovery before he returned to England. There’s his motivation right there.

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
5 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

So how does the presence of this signature indicate that Hill or any of Vyse's colleagues "probably assist[ed] ... in the forgery act"? 

You need to do some more thinking. This thread might help.

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

Okay Hermione – to save you some time.

Colonel Vyse tells us he opened and inspected L.A. Chamber (with Mr Raven) on 6th May. Oddly, none of the 120 or so quarry marks were found upon the walls of this chamber on this date.

Colonel Vyse then instructs Mr Hill to change the date of the chamber’s opening to 9th May, an instruction Mr Hill evidently carried out. Even although he would have known this chamber had been opened 3 days earlier.

We are told by Vyse that the quarry marks were discovered on the 9th May.

Why do you think  Colonel Vyse wanted to have the date of the chamber’s opening to coincide with the ‘discovery’ of the quarry marks? Why did Colonel Vyse instruct Mr Hill to place a lie on the chamber wall, a lie that Mr Hill evidently was perfectly happy to go along with?

Why?

SC

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
58 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

You need to do some more thinking. This thread might help.

 

In that thread, you questioned Vyse's account in Operations of an apparent delay in finding crew-marks in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber.  It appears that you suspect that this delay implies the existence of nefarious activities: to wit, forgery of cartouche names of Khufu.

One reply pointed out that, as the discovery was made late on a Saturday, Vyse was likely anxious to get away to Cairo, and had time only for a hasty examination.  Another reply pointed out that the markings might in fact have been far more difficult to see than implied in your initial post.

Again: what does any of this have to do with Hill's signature (9th May) under the name "Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber"?  How does Hill having written his own name, in Roman characters, in an inscription in English, even begin to suggest that he wrote several ancient Egyptian names, in ancient Egyptian characters which were scarcely known at the time?  With accompanying phrases in ancient Egyptian, to rationalise all of which you've had to resort to Alan Alford's "secret cache" idea: for which there is no evidence.

What is the logic - what is the reasoning - which takes you from Hill's having written his name to a conclusion that Vyse's colleagues "probably assist[ed] ... in the forgery act"?  

It seems to me that all you are doing here is falling back on Sitchin's vague innuendo, that "Hill had a paintbrush and so ..."

If any forgery had taken place (which it hadn't), surely Vyse would have taken care to edit his published account accordingly, and not left potentially incriminating statements in place?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
5 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

Again: what does any of this have to do with Hill's signature (9th May) under the name "Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber"? 

See post above.

SC

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
Going back over old ground:
 
SC wrote:
<< Colonel Vyse tells us he opened and inspected L.A. Chamber (with Mr Raven) on 6th May. Oddly, none of the 120 or so quarry marks were found upon the walls of this chamber on this date. >>
 
Going by the manuscript journal, entering the chamber was the last event of the working day, just before “paying off the people”:
 
 
This tends to correct the false impression given by the published version of a detailed inspection.
 
No one has found this odd but you, and you have made a strenuous effort to find it odd.
 
SC wrote:
<< Colonel Vyse then instructs Mr Hill to change the date of the chamber’s opening to 9th May, an instruction Mr Hill evidently carried out. Even although he would have known this chamber had been opened 3 days earlier.>>
 
Where is the evidence that Vyse gave any such instruction?  There is no evidence that Hill made any such change.  Although he arrived at Giza with Vyse on Monday, 8th May, it was in the afternoon: there is no evidence that Hill even returned to the relieving chambers until May 9th.  (Moreover, on the preceding day the execution of the unfortunate woman had taken place: the members of Vyse's party might not have felt much like re-entering the pyramid that evening).  Saying that he “would” have known is a poor substitute for evidence that he did know.  It is pure supposition.
 
SC wrote:
<< We are told by Vyse that the quarry marks were discovered on the 9th May. >>
 
No, we are not.  What we are told (in Operations) that the chamber was “found to contain a great many quarry-marks”.  The emphasis is on there being “a great many” of them, not on there being some at all.  This prompted Vyse to instruct Hill to copy them, as he goes on to report.
 
SC wrote:
<< Why do you think  Colonel Vyse wanted to have the date of the chamber’s opening to coincide with the ‘discovery’ of the quarry marks? Why did Colonel Vyse instruct Mr Hill to place a lie on the chamber wall, a lie that Mr Hill evidently was perfectly happy to go along with?
 
Why? >>
 
Again, where is the evidence that Vyse gave any such instruction or that Hill did any such thing?  I see no need to explain what you have merely supposed, with an agenda in supposing it.  To repeat: the date beneath the inscription of "Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber" was most likely the date when Hill painted it, and not necessarily the actual date when the chamber was first opened.  Vyse might not even have realised that there was any disparity in the dates.
 
Finally, to make a further point: you suggest that Vyse wanted to deceive his readers about the date on which the chamber was entered.  If so (following the point you have already stated), why did he state in Ops that the chamber was entered on the 6th?
 
Why, in listing the inscriptions made by Hill, does he give: Lady Arbuthnot's chamber. May 6, 1837?
Edited by Windowpane
add a further point
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
1 hour ago, Windowpane said:
[snip]
To repeat: the date beneath the inscription of "Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber" was most likely the date when Hill painted it, and not necessarily the actual date when the chamber was first opened.  Vyse might not even have realised that there was any disparity in the dates.

You're digging a big hole here, Hermione. Hill's dedication inscription refers to the date this chamber was (supposedly) opened (as do the dedication inscriptions in the other chambers) and Vyse, contrary to his private journal entry, agrees that it was (you can see his signature here - this is just one of SIX facsimile drawings from this chamber drawn by Mr Hill where he clearly writes "opened on the 9th of May 1837") and Vyse SIGNS it (along with others SIX times):

inff13H.png

Vyse lied, Hermione. The evidence proves he lied. Hill was merely following orders but he too would have known this chamber opening date of 9th May 1837 was a lie.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

 

 
SC wrote:
<< You're digging a big hole here, Hermione.
 
I doubt it.
 
SC wrote:
<< Hill's inscription refers to the date the chamber was (supposedly) opened (as do the dedication inscriptions in the other chambers) and Vyse, contrary to his private journal entry, agrees that it was (you can see his signature here - this is just one of SIX facsimile drawings from this chamber drawn by Mr Hill where he clearly writes "opened on the 9th of May 1837") and Vyse SIGNS it (along with others SIX times):
 
Yes.
 
Hill wrote "opened on the 9th of May 1837." 
 
This tends to confirm that Hill was mistaken about the day on which the chamber was opened.
 
Now, turning to the matter of Vyse signing it: I put it to you that the question of whether or not Hill had got the date absolutely accurate would hardly be an overriding priority.  
 
For one thing, the attestation was signed on 19th May, nearly a fortnight after the chamber was entered.  The date on which it was entered was likely by then something to which no one gave much thought, the kind of thing which could easily be overlooked.  
 
SC wrote:
<< Vyse lied, Hermione.
 
Vyse did not lie, Scott.  He had no reason to.  He recorded what had happened as conscientiously as he could.
 
SC wrote:
<<The evidence proves he lied. Hill was merely following orders but he too would have known this chamber opening date of 9th May 1837 was a lie.
 
The evidence does no such thing.  What the evidence suggests is a minor mistake on Hill’s part.
 
The repetition of “would have known” is merely a way of asserting - without evidence - what you yourself do not know.
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

I see that Mstower is not allowed to comment on this thread. Given he is the expert on this subject it really reduces the value of this - oft repeated - 'discussion'.

 

However we have Windowpane here who is quite capable of dealing with Scott's Sitchin inspired opinions.

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I see that Mstower is not allowed to comment on this thread. Given he is the expert on this subject it really reduces the value of this - oft repeated - 'discussion'.

Is Martin still banned?

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
6 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Irrelevant. This is about what Colonel Vyse did, not what Herodotus or Sitchin wrote. Just because Vyse perpetrated a fraud does not necessarily invalidate the view that Surid/Suphis/Khufu built the Great Pyramid. They’re two quite separate issues.

SC

The fact you’re clearly influenced by a known liar and con-man is irrelevant?! 

—Jaylemurph   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, jaylemurph said:

The fact you’re clearly influenced by a known liar and con-man is irrelevant?! 

—Jaylemurph   

He'd like to think that.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

I may be a dim ol’ PE teacher, but I still cannot understand what Vyse hoped to achieve by adding false quarry marks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
34 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

... I still cannot understand what Vyse hoped to achieve by adding false quarry marks.

No one knew that they were crew-marks (as opposed to marks supposedly placed on the blocks back at the quarry), SWoH.

Lepsius wrote a paper in 1839 that began to address the matter of the inscriptions in the relieving chambers - Lettre au Traducteur ... in Éclaircissements sur le cercueil du roi memphite Mycérinus (a translation can be found in Part II, Appendix 8, here.)  He could see that these marks, and the cartouche names within them, were performing some sort of function, having been placed in some sort of pattern: but even he couldn't work out then quite what lay behind it.

Edited by Windowpane
clarification
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
9 minutes 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?”

Well: as we know, authors such as Sitchin and Creighton propose that Vyse wanted to earn fame (if not fortune - despite suggestions to the contrary, he already had a very substantial fortune of his own) from making a spectacular find that would earn him a place in the history books: the spectacular find, in this case, being definitive proof that Khufu was responsible for the Great Pyramid.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
3 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Hill wrote "opened on the 9th of May 1837." 

 Hermione: This tends to confirm that Hill was mistaken about the day on which the chamber was opened.

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.

Quote

Hermione: Vyse did not lie, Scott.  He had no reason to.  He recorded what had happened as conscientiously as he could.

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.

 

Quote

SC wrote:

<<The evidence proves he lied. Hill was merely following orders but he too would have known this chamber opening date of 9th May 1837 was a lie.

 Hermione: The evidence does no such thing.  What the evidence suggests is a minor mistake on Hill’s part.

SC More nonsense! What PROOF do you have that Hill made a mistake, Hermione? Let's see it. So we have Vyse making mistakes in his recollection of the events of 6th May in his published account and we also now have Mr Hill making mistakes with the dates and Vyse not having a clue in any of it.

Hermione--Do you not see how BAD this looks?

No--of course you don't. Because YOU have a vested interest here in Vyse being innocent because YOU have written a book asserting that claim. So forgive me if I don't buy into your silliness here.

Quote

Hermione: The repetition of “would have known” is merely a way of asserting - without evidence - what you yourself do not know.

SC: And your assertion that Mr Hill made a "minor mistake" is something "you yourself do not know" --and is utterly risible.

They were all daft and didn't know what day of the week it was simply isn't going to wash, Hermione. Sorry.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon101
5 hours ago, Windowpane said:
Going back over old ground:

 

It's very creditable and indefatigable of you to persist in helping the perennially deluded, you deserve, (as do many others here), a great deal of respect for your kindness in speaking so tirelessly and well to those who 'willfully refuse to see'.

 

I often think that many of the most insistent promulgators of nonsense must secretly know that the theories they espouse are completely wrong.

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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon101

May I ask why SC, (it's his choice), keeps using the appellation 'Hermione' in his replies?.  It's a lovely name really and I guess it might be Windowpanes real name, (if that is indeed who he is addressing so), but if it's one of those odd pejorative things then it's very distasteful and he should be more respectful.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 hours ago, Jon101 said:

 

It's very creditable and indefatigable of you to persist in helping the perennially deluded, you deserve, (as do many others here), a great deal of respect for your kindness in speaking so tirelessly and well to those who 'willfully refuse to see'.

 

I often think that many of the most insistent promulgators of nonsense must secretly know that the theories they espouse are completely wrong.

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.

Yes good old Scott has picked up the 'Endless repetition of the same failed claim' he learned from the Cladking one of the most famous practitioners of that senseless act. It means you lay out the claim(s) based on your opinion and repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over and over as a form of harassment towards though who don't agree with you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.