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

Scott Creighton
3 hours ago, Windowpane said:
 
Quote

Hermione: 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.

SC: 23 years indeed! Yes, your co-author does seem to have an unfortunate habit of keeping 'awkward' or inconvenient information to himself. He certainly has form in that department.

Quote

Hermione: 1)

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

SC: Nevertheless, a footnote in Pückler-Muskau's PUBLISHED BOOK.

Quote

Hermione: 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.

SC: Nonsense. Really Hermione - this is where your co-author and you should not have so easily given up in trying to get to grips with the handwriting in Colonel Vyse's private journal. Had you both done so, then you would have realised exactly what Pückler-Muskau was meaning. And it categorically refers to Vyse's activities at Giza in 1837.  (Hint: When Pückler-Muskau was at Giza in 1837, he knew Vyse hadn't yet breached any of the chambers at that time).

Quote

Hermione: 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.

SC: Yes indeed. And Vyse, evidently, really didn't want to go there. Now--I wonder why? I've a feeling you're going to hate HOAX-2. I've another feeling there will be a re-write of your recently published tome.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

" ... 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).

Yeah how many centuries was the book published after the fact and wasn't there a Sitchin connection with all that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No cherry-picking, Hermione. There are clear differences between the way those king's names have been written. There apears to be a clear progression from entirely columnar to linear script. This strongly suggests text from different times--these cartouches were not all written in the 4th dynasty. 

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

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....

To me it seems to suggest that the graffiti looked like it had been when it was first applied by the AE. We'd have to see the original language he used unless he wrote it directly in English. Given Scott's love of character assassination as a method of determining whether someone is a believable it must be pointed out that he (Hermann) would be seen as a child molester. Did he make any other comments about Vyse in his book or press?

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
3 hours ago, Vaz said:

You know that how exactly?

I know that from 30 years of looking for one.

3 hours ago, Vaz said:

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

Evidence has been presented to you concerning some of the topics, including cutting granite with sand, quarrying granite by pounding, and worker graffiti in another pyramid that looks like what's found in the GP and hundreds of other sites in Egypt.

So, you need to work on that reading. It's only you that has yet to back up your statements.

3 hours ago, Vaz said:

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

Somehow, this ignorant opinion is not surprising.

Harte

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
3 hours 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. 

It establishes the end of the Stone Age in Northern Africa. If the AEs were "just out of the Stone Age," then we are "just out of the Bronze Age."

Harte

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
3 hours ago, Piney said:

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

Can't. The "atmospherics" was different back then, don'tcha know.

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
23 minutes ago, Harte said:

Can't. The "atmospherics" was different back then, don'tcha know.

Harte

More ionized..........Which means lightning storms were going on constantly, everything smelled like burnt electronics and people were getting fried daily. :yes: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
36 minutes ago, Harte said:

Can't. The "atmospherics" was different back then, don'tcha know.

Harte

Strange it doesn't show up in the ice or sediment cores......................................

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Strange it doesn't show up in the ice or sediment cores......................................

175 feet should be deep enough. We hit a peat layer from a Eocene swamp at 150. Interesting smell. :wacko:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

175 feet should be deep enough. We hit a peat layer from a Eocene swamp at 150. Interesting smell. :wacko:

oh man necro-virus time!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

oh man necro-virus time!

There were already livestock wells drilled into it decades earlier........ 

......uh oh, the zombie deer virus..... :huh:   

.......oh deer!  :unsure2:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vaz
10 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

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

Again two pyramids.  The one that that is in your mind and the one that is actually there.  They are not the same.  No point in arguing if you persist in rejecting known facts and measurements.  The 'drifiting' hypothesis just did not work either did it?

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vaz
11 hours ago, Hanslune said:

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......

Radio carbon dating of what?  I'm surprised you don't anticipate these responses and have evidence ready.

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vaz
10 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

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

cormac

That these pyramids were not originally tombs or dedications to dead pharaohs.  

Edited by Vaz
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vaz
11 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

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

We still have 30N to a high precision.  If you feel it was not originally on 30N then please provide proof.  Straight and simple.  Allow me to help:

image.png.8faf55c6099aec776889c2063ccab836.png

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/grocha/plates/platetec21.htm

Edited by Vaz
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vaz
11 hours ago, Hanslune said:

....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'?

 

13 hours ago, Harte said:

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

No further response required as your arguments wave bye bye to all common sense.  Rebuttal given to these points in other posts.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President Wearer of Hats
1 hour ago, Vaz said:

 

No further response required as your arguments wave bye bye to all common sense.  Rebuttal given to these points in other posts.  

Indeed, an ancient invisible civilisation building the pyramids as power plants are far more sensible. I totally agree. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vaz
1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Indeed, an ancient invisible civilisation building the pyramids as power plants are far more sensible. I totally agree. 

So do I.  The tech just was not around to build the GP at that time.  You have to think in reverse when considering Egypt.  It devolved over a huge amount of time.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President Wearer of Hats
1 minute ago, Vaz said:

So do I.  The tech just was not around to build the GP at that time.  You have to think in reverse when considering Egypt.  It devolved over a huge amount of time

FE9F2811-438F-4F43-A51D-87CFF362EB81.png.704460777fc4eac57bb24d350ad01804.png

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
 
“Proof” is what you called it, Scott.  I quoted your words verbatim:
 
You have also repeatedly stated that "the evidence proves" that Vyse lied.  I've seen nothing I'd call evidence of this, never mind proof.  Allow me to remind you that "proof" means "sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition." As Hanslune has noted, your notions of evidence and proof remain confused, ill-informed, and (in my opinion) merely rhetorical.  
 
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's ten 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.
 
Again, Scott, the prior allegation is yours - and you (not me) are the one who claims he has "proof".  So where is your sufficient evidence?
 
Allow me to remind you that you consider the date painted by Hill to be erroneous.  You posit an elaborate scenario of conspiracy and deception to explain this error, whereas I appeal to common sense - to our shared experience of making mistakes and seeing mistakes made by others.  The position which stands in need of "proof" is yours.
 
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.
 
No, Scott, you have it wrong.  Your "evidence" is a series of trivialities; the only thing making it "evidence" is your insistence on your particular interpretation.  The crucial link, in your view, is an unevidenced supposition: that the witnesses "could not have missed" the date.  Five witnesses?  Again you load the dice.  What would Arbuthnot and Brettell know about it?  Why would the date of opening be of any concern to them?  The object of the exercise was to compare Hill's facsimiles with the inscriptions on the walls.  I daresay that was enough to occupy their attention.
 
SC: 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.
 
The unwarranted supposition here being that Vyse's request specified the wording to use.   That Hill gave the date as "9th May" is prima facie evidence that it did not.  How did Vyse make his request?  Did he write it down?  (We know what his writing is like).  Was it spoken?  (Hill could have misremembered.)  Unlike you, Scott, I do not pretend to know what was going on in Hill's head, Vyse's head etc.  I consider the various possibilities - and again, unlike you, I don't neglect the ones not labelled "forgery."
 
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.
 
None of this means anything.  (At this point, I should perhaps add that there is a discussion of the dates of 6th and 9th May in Bk 2, Appendix 7, of Strange Journey).
 
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 in these giant pyramids you have nothing to offer. 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, Hermione.
 
If someone claimed that in 1837 Vyse had seen Khufu's corpse (or at least mummy), I would want something more in support of it than a "proposal" that it happened.  That's a more fitting analogy for your "proposed secret cache".  (Incidentally, your theories concerning the "secret cache" are discussed in Ch. 25 of Strange Journey).
 
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.
 
Allow me to remind you that you have alleged that Vyse lied - and claimed that the evidence proves this.  You have yet to show us anything we could properly call evidence, never mind proof.
 
Whereas the evidence of this "anomaly" being merely a mistake is the massive, overwhelming evidence of human fallibility.
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

SC: 23 years indeed! Yes, your co-author does seem to have an unfortunate habit of keeping 'awkward' or inconvenient information to himself. He certainly has form in that department.

 
On the contrary, Scott, your false allegation of this has been more than fully answered, as you know very well.
 
My co-author did what you failed to do: looked further into the source, and put the remark in context.
 
SC: Nevertheless, a footnote in Pückler-Muskau's PUBLISHED BOOK.
 
Yes, Scott, and in the fantasy world you project, someone like Pückler-Muskau could go into print accusing Vyse of fraud and it not result in scandal.  Where is the evidence of anyone at the time taking Pückler-Muskau's remarks in the sense in which you have taken them?
 
What Pückler-Muskau had in mind is evident on reading his "published book" closely.  He thought that the pyramids were originally "nothing more than tumuli of stone" "without sculpture, and without hieroglyphic writings."  On this assumption the writings discoverd by Vyse had to be intrusive.
 
He also thought that "several of the insignificant, low, narrow passages and chambers" were "scooped and built in the pyramids for certain purposes of the priests."  In short he was attributing the "hieroglyphics discovered by Colonel Vyse" to these later (Egyptian) priests: no suggestion of forgery at all.
 
That the chambers were yet to be opened when Pückler-Muskau was at Giza makes him even less a source on the question.
 
Why didn't you see this for yourself, Scott?  Before coming here and misleading us?
 
SC: Nonsense. Really Hermione - this is where your co-author and you should not have so easily given up in trying to get to grips with the handwriting in Colonel Vyse's private journal. Had you both done so, then you would have realised exactly what Pückler-Muskau was meaning. And it categorically refers to Vyse's activities at Giza in 1837.  (Hint: When Pückler-Muskau was at Giza in 1837, he knew Vyse hadn't yet breached any of the chambers at that time).
 
Your false allegation that we gave up on the journal has already been answered in this thread.
 
SC: Yes indeed. And Vyse, evidently, really didn't want to go there. Now--I wonder why? I've a feeling you're going to hate HOAX-2. I've another feeling there will be a re-write of your recently published tome.
 
How on earth was it Vyse's choice whether or not a scandal resulted from Pückler-Muskau's book?  The power to cloud men's minds?
 
And I'm not sure why you're suggesting that we should re-write Strange Journey when it seems that you've not even read it.
Edited by Windowpane
add a further point
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

No cherry-picking, Hermione. There are clear differences between the way those king's names have been written. There apears to be a clear progression from entirely columnar to linear script. This strongly suggests text from different times--these cartouches were not all written in the 4th dynasty. 

 

 
Allow me to remind you of this.
 
Only five years ago ...
 
(And this.)
Edited by Windowpane
add a further point
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
1 hour ago, Windowpane said:
 
Allow me to remind you of this.
 
Only five years ago ...
 
(And this.)

SC: 2nd image isn't very clear to me. What I see in your first image is a mixture of columnar and linear hieratic markings. The hieratic markings in the Vyse Chambers are, without exception, wholly linear. When did the AEs start writing hieratic script in wholly linear form, Hermione?

But that is not the only issue with the king's names in the Vyse Chambers. You will notice, for example, the Horus name in the Merer logbook is written in hieratic script with the Serekh and the palace facade motif. The Horus name in the Vyse Chambers is much simplified i.e. it has evolved into a much simpler form. This is not how the Horus name would typically be written in the 4th Dyn.

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

"Misleading us"? Did you have to dampen down Mr Stower's "liar" accusation there, Hermione?

Moving on.

Hermione: On the contrary, Scott, your false allegation of this has been more than fully answered, as you know very well.

My co-author did what you failed to do: looked further into the source, and put the remark in context.

SC: Your co-author (and you) gave up on the primary evidence. Had you persevered with it, you'd have been fully aware of why Pückler-Muskau made his 1845 remark.

SC: Nevertheless, a footnote in Pückler-Muskau's PUBLISHED BOOK.

Hermione: Yes, Scott, and in the fantasy world you project, someone like Pückler-Muskau could go into print accusing Vyse of fraud and it not result in scandal.  Where is the evidence of anyone at the time taking Pückler-Muskau's remarks in the sense in which you have taken them?

SC: Certainly there would have been a scandal had Vyse challenged the remarks. That he didn't challenge the remarks is telling indeed. Why others didn't follow up the matter at the time we cannot possibly know.

Hermione: What Pückler-Muskau had in mind is evident on reading his "published book" closely.  He thought that the pyramids were originally "nothing more than tumuli of stone" "without sculpture, and without hieroglyphic writings."  On this assumption the writings discoverd by Vyse had to be intrusive.

He also thought that "several of the insignificant, low, narrow passages and chambers" were "scooped and built in the pyramids for certain purposes of the priests."  In short he was attributing the "hieroglyphics discovered by Colonel Vyse" to these later (Egyptian) priests: no suggestion of forgery at all.

That the chambers were yet to be opened when Pückler-Muskau was at Giza makes him even less a source on the question.

Why didn't you see this for yourself, Scott?  Before coming here and misleading us?

SC: Because, Hermione, I have read Vyse's private journal (as well as his published account) whereas you haven't. You do not know what I know. But you'll find out in good time.

SC: Nonsense. Really Hermione - this is where your co-author and you should not have so easily given up in trying to get to grips with the handwriting in Colonel Vyse's private journal. Had you both done so, then you would have realised exactly what Pückler-Muskau was meaning. And it categorically refers to Vyse's activities at Giza in 1837.  (Hint: When Pückler-Muskau was at Giza in 1837, he knew Vyse hadn't yet breached any of the chambers at that time).

Your false allegation that we gave up on the journal has already been answered in this thread.

SC: Nothing false about it. You gave up. From your own book:

Gqhzi53.png

Quote

"...they [Vyse's private notes] were of  no help... even a cursory inspection was enough to show me that the handwriting was effectively illegible."

SC: A clear enough statement of giving up on a primary source.

SC: Yes indeed. And Vyse, evidently, really didn't want to go there. Now--I wonder why? I've a feeling you're going to hate HOAX-2. I've another feeling there will be a re-write of your recently published tome.

Hermione: How on earth was it Vyse's choice whether or not a scandal resulted from Pückler-Muskau's book?  The power to cloud men's minds?

SC: (See above).

Hermione: And I'm not sure why you're suggesting that we should re-write Strange Journey when it seems that you've not even read it.

SC: I've read enough of it and discussions of it on the web to know your key premise is that Walter Allen embellished (falsified) his journal entry from 1954. Do you have evidence of that allegation, Hermione? Have you managed to get a hold of the pages from Allen's logbook and have the ink tested, for example? 

Vyse perpetrated a fraud within the Great Pyramid, Hermione. There's more than enough physical evidence to raise serious doubt over his alleged discovery. That you cannot see those anomalies is baffling to say the least. However, many others do see the anomalies I raise and do see they add up to serious questions that need to be answered.

 SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 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.