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
1 hour ago, Windowpane said:
 

Hermione: Whereas the evidence of this "anomaly" being merely a mistake is the massive, overwhelming evidence of human fallibility.

SC: No one, least of all me, is saying that humans are infallible, Hermione. But when humans really, really need to get something important right, we normally do.

Mr Hill made no mistake when it suited you i.e. when the date he placed in the chamber was actually the date (you claimed) he had merely painted the inscription. Oh yes--he was perfectly able to paint the correct the date then, Hermione. It's only now, because I disproved you on that point, that you reach out to your fallback position of "Oh well, it musta been a mistake." How so very convenient.

However, I remain confident that most objective folks out there will be giving your argument short shrift.

1) Hill had to get this right. This wasn't some trivial piece of text he was painting onto the wall. As such he would have to have been absolutely certain of the date he was painting, of getting it absolutely correct.

2) It is almost certain that he would have consulted Vyse as to the text to be placed on the wall. You concede this yourself. What you're effectively claiming then is that Vyse would have told Mr Hill to place the 6th May onto the wall. Thus between Mr Hill receiving this instruction and getting himself to L.A. Chamber to paint the inscription (say 1 hour to get there), he has misremembered and the 6th becomes the 9th.

3) Your position implies that Mr Hill did not write down the desired text or that Mr Hill couldn't read Vyse's handwriting. If he couldn;t read it then this, surely, would have been immediately apparent to him and would surely have asked for Vyse to make it clearer. But no. 

4) If Hill misremembered what Vyse had instructed as you claim i.e. the 9th, then you're implying Hill didn't know what the current date was i.e. he wasn't able to figure out that "if today is the 9th then this date I'm painting (i.e. the 9th) can't be right because the chamber was open 3 days earlier. It should be the 6th." Hill couldn't work out that simple fact is what you're implying. So, not only did he misremember what Vyse had instructed but he didn't even know what the current date was either. Sure--whatever floats your boat.

5) He evidently had no problem in getting all the other chamber dedication inscriptions correct.

6) The 'mistake' was never corrected which would have been easy enough to do.

Yes, humans make mistakes, Hermione. But, as previously stated, this was one of those situations where you simply had to get something absolutely spot on. In short, given the importance of this inscription, the improbability that Mr Hill didn't know what the current date was, the fact that you rely on him misremembering a simple date after only about an hour or so, the fact that he had no problems with any of the other inscriptions, then it is simply inconceivable to me (and probably to most objective people) that this was, as you claim, the result of a "minor mistake". That being the case then all we are left with is a deliberate act. A lie. It was Vyse's text, therefore, it is Vyse's lie.

SC

Share this post


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

SC: 2nd image isn't very clear to me.

(SC contd.)  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?
 
Columnar?  Really?  The cartouches - all of them - are in horizontal form.  So, too, the characters following them.  These ensembles are clearly ˤpr names and one of the names is close in form to the śmrw ˤpr name in the pyramid of Khufu.  Names of this form are multiply attested.
 
As for the second image, your comment looks very like an excuse to ignore it.  You are welcome to find and show us a better one.  This one shows two cartouches of Khufu, in horizontal form, from the second boat pit.
 
On when hieratic was written "in wholly linear form": red herring.  I see where you're going with your argument and it's a thoroughly bad one.  For one thing, you are far too fixated on the idea (which you picked up in the first place from my co-author) that the script of inscriptions of this genre is hieratic.  More accurate - more respectful of the evidence - would be to say that it bears a family resemblance to hieratic.  Your repeated hasty adoption of a prescriptive stance is your major failing in these matters.  You cannot keep saying, "This hieratic disobeys the rules of hieratic."  It's a nonsense.
 
SC: 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.
 
This is the standard form of the Horus name in a horizontal inscription.  We find it in hieroglyphic contexts also.  
 
The writing on the Merer papyri is in columns.  In such a context the serekh is used.
 
That no one understood this in 1837 is actually an argument against "forgery."
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

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?

 

You don't even know what the measurements are. The ones that are actually there DON'T support your fantasy. 

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

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

Those pyramids WERE constructed by the AE. 

cormac

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
20 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

You don't even know what the measurements are. The ones that are actually there DON'T support your fantasy. 

cormac

There was quantum spatial differences then. When the Earth shifted into another plane of magnetic radioactive flux, the pyramids' size shifted and their batteries went flat. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

"Misleading us"?

SC: (contd.) Did you have to dampen down Mr Stower's "liar" accusation there, Hermione?
 
No such accusation was made.  However, your attitude to evidence is demonstrated in your making up an accusation in its absence.  Thank you for the insight: it will certainly help in assessing your other claims.
 
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.
 
Yes: that Vyse didn't challenge these remarks, but challenged at length the accusations made by (and on behalf of) Caviglia, is telling.  It tells us that neither Vyse nor anyone else at the time understood these remarks as accusations.  Certainly there would have been a scandal if Prince Pückler-Muskau had made such an accusation, whether or not Vyse had challenged it.  We cannot possibly know?  Yes we can.  Careful reading of Pückler-Muskau's text shows us that he was advancing a theory of his own about the pyramids, as already outlined.  His footnote served merely to answer in advance an obvious objection.  It was not an accusation, never mind one directed at Vyse.
 
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.
 
Really, Scott?  All of it?  Every word?  Allow me to remind you of this:
 
Quote

It didn't help our task, either, that upon returning home we discovered that a sizeable number of our photographic images were of insufficient quality to make a proper analysis. (HOAX, pp. 160-161)

For your information, one thing my co-author has said is that he didn't do too badly with his photocopies.

I look forward to seeing your transcript.
 
SC: Nothing false about it. You gave up. From your own book:
 
Already answered, as I've already mentioned more than once in this thread.
 
Repeating a falsehood (again and again) doesn't make it true ...
 
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?
 
Why: have you?  Did you insist on such tests, before invoking "Allen's logbook" as evidence?
 
You want to know?  Read the book.
 
SC: 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.
 
Sorry, but your pontifical pronouncements cut no ice.  Let's see that "proof" you were promising (remember: "sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition").
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
7 hours ago, Vaz said:

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

You might be interested in this.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


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

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

Allow you to screw up you mean, yes we see: 

Quote

The African Plate's speed is estimated at around 2.15 cm (0.85 in) per year.[4] It has been moving over the past 100 million years or so in a general northeast direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Plate

If it's moving in a general northeast direction then it's coming, again generally, from the SOUTHWEST, which means it was NEVER at 30N. 

cormac

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

If being 1.44 miles off the mark is considered "high precision" then someone should call the White House and let them know they're located in the middle of the Potomac River. :w00t:

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
8 hours 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.  

No rebuttals were given in any of your posts.

Personal incredulity is not a rebuttal.

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

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

This post reveals at least the partial depth of your ignorance in this matter.

You ignorance could, and probably does, run deeper than you here display.

Anyone even the least bit familiar with the claims and arguments made in this thread knows about the two different rounds of carbon dating at Giza, done a decade apart.

So you have shown us that you are not even the least bit familiar with the topic you're claiming to know all about.

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

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

Um...

the African plate is actually moving toward the north-northeast.

Wouldn't that mean the GP was originally further south than today?

https://latitude.to/articles-by-country/eg/egypt/135/great-pyramid-of-giza

https://www.google.com/maps/place/30°00'00.0"N+31°08'02.2"E/@29.9683248,30.8734475,9.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d30!4d31.1339472

Therefore it has never been at 30 degrees north, and the original discrepancy from that latitude was greater than today.

Harte

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
13 minutes ago, Harte said:

Um...

the African plate is actually moving toward the north-northeast.

Wouldn't that mean the GP was originally further south than today?

https://latitude.to/articles-by-country/eg/egypt/135/great-pyramid-of-giza

https://www.google.com/maps/place/30°00'00.0"N+31°08'02.2"E/@29.9683248,30.8734475,9.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d30!4d31.1339472

Therefore it has never been at 30 degrees north, and the original discrepancy from that latitude was greater than today.

Harte

Evidently "high precision" is open to interpretation by Vaz as he apparently doesn't know where 30N lies. 

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

What, exactly, is the significance of 30 degrees north?    A purely arbitary number?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

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.

From Pückler-Muskau's 1845 book:

"Herodotus indicates, that is, in the centre of the rock, over which the gigantic stone tumulus was afterwards erected; for, after all, these rude beginnings of art, without sculpture, and without hieroglyphic writings,  were nothing more than tumuli of stone, though, at the time of Herodotus, they were again surrounded with the ornaments of art, (which had improved in the meantime) with temples, sphinxes, colossi, courts, and avenues, all of which had hieroglyphics, while the primeval monuments were left with religious awe in their original simplicity.†

Nay, it is not impossible, that several of the insignificant low, narrow passages and chambers, which are so entirely out of proportion to the immense masses of stone, that there is scarcely room in them either to kneel or to lie down, were scooped and built in the pyramids for certain purposes of the priests, as shafts are driven into the rocks, and, as we ourselves have of late seen undertaken by the English in these colossal monuments, though less systematically, and with inferior means.

† "The hieroglyphics, said to have been discovered by Colonel Vyse, in the interior of the Great Pyramid, are not carved in the stone, but only traced, as with a finger dipped in paint, and have perhaps been lately pencilled on the wall." 

Source.

It is absolutely clear here that Prince Pückler-Muskau knew the difference between the passages he believed to have been dug by priests long ago to those dug by Vyse and his men to gain access to the sealed Vyse Chambers. He was at Giza at the time even before Vyse had broken into any of the chambers. And yet in his 1845 publication, knowing that Vyse would have been the first into these upper chambers, he maintains his remark (above) about the hieroglyphs Vyse supposedly discovered.

It must surely be abundant now to even the most sceptical mind that Pückler-Muskau was not talking about priests accessing the Vyse Chambers to paint these marks, but that Pückler-Muskau believed they were painted there by Vyse. We know Pückler-Muskau met Caviglia (Vyse's former partner) in Cairo at the time who may have suspected what Vyse was planning or he may perhaps have met an eye witness who later told him what Vyse had been up to. Whatever his source for this inferred allegation of fraudulent activity by Vyse, it was clearly of sound enough a basis for Pückler-Muskau to feel confident enough to go public and put it into print in 1845.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
2 minutes ago, Essan said:

What, exactly, is the significance of 30 degrees north?    A purely arbitary number?

Vaz won't say it but it seems evident IMO that it's from the fringe claim that the Great Pyramid is located at the exact center of all landmass on earth, which is bullscheise. 

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Those pyramids WERE constructed by the AE. 

cormac

No proof.  If you have you would have presented it by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vaz
1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

Evidently "high precision" is open to interpretation by Vaz as he apparently doesn't know where 30N lies. 

cormac

The calcs are easy to do.  I've done them.  As I said I haven't fallen off my chair yet. Btw do you fancy using 4500 years or 12500 years?  I'll let you pick.  

Edited by Vaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vaz
33 minutes ago, Essan said:

What, exactly, is the significance of 30 degrees north?    A purely arbitary number?

With a tiny bit of research you could find out.  Most serious Pyramid researchers have :whistle:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
4 minutes ago, Vaz said:

No proof.  If you have you would have presented it by now.

You've not shown you understand what proof/evidence is. Try again. 

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
4 minutes ago, Vaz said:

With a tiny bit of research you could find out.  Most serious Pyramid researchers have :whistle:

I'm not a serious pyramid researcher.  So please enlighten me :)     

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
4 minutes ago, Vaz said:

The calcs are easy to do.  I've done them.  As I said I haven't fallen off my chair yet. Btw do you fancy using 4500 years or 12500 years?  I'll let you pick.  

Evidently math isn't your forte. You don't know the difference between 30N and 29 58 45N. That's simultaneously sad and embarrassing for you. 

There were no civilizations in Egypt 12,500 years BP. :rolleyes:

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
18 minutes ago, Vaz said:

No proof.  If you have you would have presented it by now.

Are you stupid enough you believe that, or do you think /we’re/ all stupid enough to believe that?

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
11 hours 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.  

Uh huh he gone into pure trolling - no need to response to the nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

1010389631_GPpositionfrom30N.thumb.jpg.e6562dc1c3af56b25776e9a02fda5b3c.jpg30N

The above isn't remotely rocket science. The top line is 30N, the bottom line is the approximate center of the Great Pyramid. 30N isn't even on the Giza Plateau proper. :rolleyes:

cormac

  • Like 5

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.