Giza Pyramid construction

[Harte 19,368]

1 hour ago, Vaz said:

Yet no one else has seen this 'evidence'?

The reason why we are in this discussion is as follows:

You all seem to feel here that the GP is some random thrown together monument with little more significance than say a roman amphitheatre.  You talk about stacking rocks.  You make up silly claims about wandering land masses.  You make silly claims about copper cutting granite.  Drunken gangs,

Never will we see eye to eye until you see that pyramid for what it truly is.

I can't help you there.  You have to do this for yourself.  Although why I can't imagine because the information has been there for a very long time.

Could there be a more significant ulterior motive for your dismissal?  Are you a devotee to the superior achievements of modern man by any chance?  Dismissing all else that came before.

Both the Egyptian and Roman constructions are very significant, regardless of how you want to (mis)characterize what's been said about them.

The Pyramids are ALL stacks of rocks.

You seem to think land masses don't wander. Welcome to the nut house.

You've been told that granite was cut with sand. You have stated otherwise multiple times since this information was given to you. This is because you MUST continue your existence in fairyland.

The "Drunkards of Menkaure" is part of the worker's graffiti found in Menkaure's pyramid. You were told this as well, but simply dismiss it as non-existant in order to (once again) continue to live in a fantasy world.

Harte

[Windowpane 2,037]

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton 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.

 

 

Your stated requirement of me is not just evidence, but proof.

 

So, I must "actually prove with good evidence that this was indeed a mistake."

But meanwhile, all you yourself need do is invoke "reasonable doubt"  ...

Was there ever so ingenuous - so entirely rhetorical - an appeal to a double standard?

The evidence that Hill painted a 9 on the wall is there on the wall.  What proof do you have that he did so with intent to deceive?  Your transcript of his diary entry for that day revealing his thoughts, for example?

[Hanslune 15,358]

18 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

(Your source: Egypt under Mehemet Ali, Volumes 1-2, Hermann Pückler-Muskau (Fürst von), H. Colburn, 1845)

 

My co-author tells me, however, that, some 23 years ago, he came across correspondence published by Pückler-Muskau six years before this, in 1839.  From this earlier correspondence, it becomes abundantly clear that the Prince was not at all suggesting that "the marks found by Vyse within the Great Pyramid were ... fraudulently placed there."

 

In 1839, Pückler-Muskau wrote that: 

 

 

There are several points worth noting:

 

1)  In the 1845 work to which you linked, Pückler-Muskau's comment anyway appears only in a footnote.

 

2)  As a close reading of the texts reveals, Pückler-Muskau was under the confused misapprehension that the tunnels were the work of later priests (1839: 724;1845: 246).  His comments about "comparatively recent" refer to this belief, and not to the late 1830s.

 

3) When Pückler-Muskau made his comments, in 1839 and 1845, no one appears to have taken them as an accusation that Vyse had committed forgery.  Had they done so, there would have been a monstrous scandal - rather like one gentleman accusing another of cheating at cards.

 

Howdy

How many times has this particular point been discussed?

[Hanslune 15,358]

5 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

So, I must "actually prove with good evidence that this was indeed a mistake."

 

Oh my proof is usually found in math, alcohol and armor not Egyptology....lol. Is Scott STILL struggling with the difference between evidence and proof? STILL after all these years....chuckle.

[Kenemet 11,833]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Not even by the King's soul that could pass through stone?

SC

If it was intended to be seen, then why aren't these areas beautifully finished?  Why are some tombs left half-finished?  Why don't they make the outsides of rock cut tombs smooth and beautiful?  

When they build, they create visual beauty.  There's not a lot of attention given to things that can't be seen, however.

[Windowpane 2,037]

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

This is simply not true, John. They are categorically not completely consistent with other cartouches supposedly from the same period. There's a fairly significant difference between the hieratic cartouches Vyse claimed to have found and those other genuine cartouches from the 4th dynasty. Spot the difference:

SC

 

Unfortunately, I think you might have fallen into a cherry-picking trap here ...

 

On the Wadi al-Jarf papyri, the writing is in a columnar arrangement, so naturally the cartouches are also.

 

If we look at the characters accompanying one of the (columnar) Khnum-Khufu cartouches, we see that they are in a horizontal arrangement.

 

While in the Djedefre examples, we find a similar mixed arrangement.

 

If we consider the Menkaure examples already mentioned, we see this - a horizontal arrangement, just as in the Khufu examples.

 

Clearly, Scott, you cannot be simply unaware of this ...

 

Or are we to take it that you know better about the palaeography of such inscriptions than (to name just two) Verner and Dobrev?

[Vaz 336]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

Too late to edit so I'll add that the tectonic movement of Africa within the last circa 4500 years has been generally northEAST which, using modern latitude/longitude assignments, would place the center of the Great Pyramid approximately on a line DUE WEST of the southern side of the smallest of the three Giza Pyramids, that of Pharaoh Menkaure. Its centerpoint would therefore be thusly: 

cormac

So wait its moved from 29 58 45 N to now exactly 30N

So what now?  I haven't fallen off my chair yet.

[Vaz 336]

1 hour ago, Harte said:

There is no "legend" of Atlantis. No previous mention before Plato.

Harte

You know that how exactly?

All I'm reading an "oh yes it is and oh no it isn't" alternation.

Nothing I've read in the last dozen posts serves as a valid rebuttal to anything I've said.  

Edited November 2, 2019 by Vaz

[Vaz 336]

45 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

If it was intended to be seen, then why aren't these areas beautifully finished?  Why are some tombs left half-finished?  Why don't they make the outsides of rock cut tombs smooth and beautiful?  

When they build, they create visual beauty.  There's not a lot of attention given to things that can't be seen, however.

The GP was built as a functional machine.  Precision was the key, not adornment.  There isn't any to be seen in the GP even in it's original state.

A vital clue that it wasn't built by AE's

[Vaz 336]

1 hour ago, Harte said:

"Just out of the Stone Age?"

Let me ask you, when did the "stone age" end in Egypt?

Answer - the oldest evidence for copper smelting in North Africa dates to 2500 years before the Great Pyramid date, and isn't crude enough to indicate it is the oldest.

Harte

The existence of copper isn't likely to indicate an advanced culture and isn't in the sightest bit helpful to establishing who the original builders were. 

[Vaz 336]

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Well, no.  There's the temple, the boat pits, various inscriptions, the queens tombs, etc, etc.  

OK.  All indicating what?  Be honest please.  Is it like the Meyer papyrus talking about food supplies and who went to the quarry and when?

Or does it contain information that answers the magnificence of the monument we actually see?

Can you see what I'm getting at?

[Piney 74,931]

8 minutes ago, Vaz said:

The GP was built as a functional machine. 

So build a functional model to prove it. It shouldn't be hard. 

8 minutes ago, Vaz said:

A vital clue that it wasn't built by AE's

So who were the people and where did they go? 

[cormac mac airt 16,135]

21 minutes ago, Vaz said:

So wait its moved from 29 58 45 N to now exactly 30N

So what now?  I haven't fallen off my chair yet.

The Great Pyramid is not now, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN at 30N. Did you understand THAT? 

You haven't shown any relevance to the facts either. 

cormac

[Hanslune 15,358]

21 minutes ago, Vaz said:

The existence of copper isn't likely to indicate an advanced culture and isn't in the sightest bit helpful to establishing who the original builders were. 

....and what do YOU use to establish who the original builders were? Could you list the parameters and criteria YOU are using on the evidence to come to your 'conclusion'?

[Hanslune 15,358]

6 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The Great Pyramid is not now, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN at 30N. Did you understand THAT? 

You haven't shown any relevance to the facts either. 

cormac

Hey give him a break he was told to believe that and darn if he's NOT going to do it!

[cormac mac airt 16,135]

15 minutes ago, Piney said:

So build a functional model to prove it. It shouldn't be hard. 

So who were the people and where did they go? 

And why does radiocarbon dating place its construction circa 2550 BC and NOT thousands of years earlier. And why do the native cultures in the area predating Dynastic Egypt, namely the Maadi Culture and Merimda Culture, NOT show evidence of any such advanced civilization existing anywhere near Giza in predynastic times? 

cormac

Edited November 2, 2019 by cormac mac airt

[Hanslune 15,358]

14 minutes ago, Piney said:

So build a functional model to prove it. It shouldn't be hard. 

So who were the people and where did they go? 

.....well that's the problem the fringe youtubes attack the AE but are kinda light on who these other folks were - to the point of avoiding any discussion of them - and instead return to dismissing the AE....its kinda funny to watch such demonstrated lunacy.

[Hanslune 15,358]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And why does radiocarbon dating place its construction circa 2550 BC and NOT thousands of years earlier. And why do the native cultures in the area predating Dynastic Egypt, namely the Maadi Culture and Merimda Culture, NOT show evidence of any such advanced civilization existing anywhere near Giza in predynastic times? 

cormac

That's why they were called the Invisible Civilization - a decade or so ago I use to call them the "trap people' they use to lay down an immensely large tarp to keep from leaving anything behind......

[cormac mac airt 16,135]

Because evidently Vaz isn't smart enough to figure it out it apparently needs to be pointed out that plate tectonics having only shown a movement of circa 0.72 miles in distance over 4500 years WILL NEVER support the GPs alleged position at 30N, which is 2 MILES away. 

cormac

[Windowpane 2,037]

4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

His assistants did most of it although as we learn from Walter Allen, "faint marks were repainted, some were new". So, some marks are genuine, others are fake. We simply have to determine which marks are fake and which are genuine.

" ... we learn from Walter Allen ... "?

Oddly, you have neglected to mention that Walter Allen's supposed source was his great-grandfather Humphries Brewer - and there's a whole book on that question (well, two, in fact).

[cormac mac airt 16,135]

1 hour ago, Vaz said:

You know that how exactly?

All I'm reading an "oh yes it is and oh no it isn't" alternation.

Nothing I've read in the last dozen posts serves as a valid rebuttal to anything I've said.  

The story doesn't exist before Plato and no, Solon ISN'T a source for it as he remains silent on the matter. 

cormac

[cormac mac airt 16,135]

1 hour ago, Vaz said:

The GP was built as a functional machine.  Precision was the key, not adornment.  There isn't any to be seen in the GP even in it's original state.

A vital clue that it wasn't built by AE's

If precision was the key the AE massively screwed up. They couldn't manage to set it exactly to the cardinal points, they managed to twist it slightly from top to bottom and had to correct it with cladding. They couldn't make the blocks the same size nor even completely square. They built the entire structure on top of a massif, which makes the estimated quantity of blocks significantly WRONG. Only 2 of the 4 shafts go to the outside and only the sides of the rooms, etc. facing anyone looking at them are anywhere near smooth. Yeah, not even good enough for government work by todays standards. 

cormac

[cormac mac airt 16,135]

1 hour ago, Vaz said:

The GP was built as a functional machine.  Precision was the key, not adornment.  There isn't any to be seen in the GP even in it's original state.

A vital clue that it wasn't built by AE's

There's not any in the preceding pyramids either. Your point? 

cormac

[Sir Wearer of Hats 37,780]

7 hours 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

You mean a rival to Vyse, someone from a nation with an inherent desire to see thr British knocked down a peg or three alludes to a potential forgery? 
I am shocked. Shocked I say. 
They said the same of Champollion you know....

[Scott Creighton 120]

3 hours ago, Windowpane said:

 

Quote

Hermione: Your stated requirement of me is not just evidence, but proof.

SC: You can call it what you like.

Quote

Hermione: So, I must "actually prove with good evidence that this was indeed a mistake."

SC: You must certainly present convincing evidence of your stated position if you wish anyone to seriously consider it. And when you present such evidence, it is then for the rest of us to decide whether it is sufficient (or not) to prove your case. So Hermione--let's see your evidence that Mr Hill made a mistake when he painted the '9' onto the wall instead of a '6'? That's what you're claiming so let's have it Hermione.

Quote

Hermione: But meanwhile, all you yourself need do is invoke "reasonable doubt"  ...

SC: No Hermione--you have this all wrong. I have actually presented evidence to you that backs my position. Mr Hill correctly painted the opening dates into the other chambers. That goes to his reliability/credibility. (Or do you now wish to dispute the dates in these other chambers?) The date he wrote on six of his facsimile drawings from L.A. Chamber clearly states 9th May as being the opening of this chamber. Five witnesses, including Vyse, could not have missed that date on six different occasions. As such, these five witnesses effectively corroborated what Mr Hill had written on that wall of L.A.'s Chamber as the opening date i.e. 9th May. As such, that also goes towards Mr Hill's credibility i.e. that the date he painted on the wall was (ahem) 'correct' i.e. what he was instructed to write by Colonel Vyse. And this text was Vyse's text, Hermione. You said as much yourself here:

Quote

Hermione: "The inscription - in black paint, not red - was presumably inserted by Hill at Vyse's request..."

From here.

Vyse gave Hill the text that we see today upon the wall of L.A.'s Chamber, painted by Mr Hill. So how exactly, Hermione, did Mr Hill somehow convert a 6 into a 9? How did he think six means nine? What's going on in his head. Explain.

This inscription was most likely painted onto this wall on 9th May (before the visit of the Arbuthnots to the GP on the 10th). Unless he was stupid, Hill most assuredly would have known the current date i.e. 9th May before he began painting that inscription. He would most assuredly also have known that the chamber had been opened 3 days earlier on the 6th May. So when he is painting that 9 on that wall he most assuredly would have realised his own mistake, "Oh, wait a minute, TODAY'S the 9th. The chamber was opened 3 days ago which actually makes it the 6th so why the hell am I painting a 9? Okay--scrub that. I'll paint the 6th." Unless you are now going to insist that Mr Hill couldn't subtract then how do you explain why he would have proceeded in that chamber to paint a 9 on that wall? Explain it to me. If this was a mistake as you claim, then it is a mistake that is beyond comprehension and could only come about if Hill AND Vyse didn't know what the current date was. Which is unlikely in the extreme.

Quote

Hermione: Was there ever so ingenuous - so entirely rhetorical - an appeal to a double standard?

SC: Double standards, actually, are entirely the domain of the mainstream. You assert, for example, that I must present the primary evidence (the 'secret cache') that Vyse got his information of the gang names etc from (which he probably had destroyed) and yet, when I ask for evidence of a king's body ever having been buried in these giant pyramids you have nothing to offer but continue to insist they were tombs of kings. But you demand that I produce the 'secret cache' even though Vyse would have been insane to keep it lying around at Giza. There's your real double standard right there, Hermione. You expect us all to to accept that these pyramids were built as the tombs of AE kings without producing a single body from any of these pyramids, without producing the primary evidence. Behave yourself.

Quote

Hermione: The evidence that Hill painted a 9 on the wall is there on the wall.  What proof do you have that he did so with intent to deceive?  Your transcript of his diary entry for that day revealing his thoughts, for example?

SC: The anomaly is clearly there, Hermione. Even you cannot deny there is an anomaly there. And it needs to be explained. You have offered your explanation for it i.e. a "minor mistake" and have done so without any evidence whatsoever to support your conjecture. I believe this anomaly came about as a result of an attempted fraud that was (partially) aborted. For the rest of my reasoning on this you'll just have to wait for HOAX-2.

SC

Edited November 2, 2019 by Scott Creighton