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

Windowpane
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Hermione: What Pückler-Muskau had in mind 

...

into print in 1845.

SC

 
Er, yes, Scott.  Let me run this past you again.
 
The letter by Pückler-Muskau, published in The Athenaeum, September 21, 1839:
 
Quote

"The hieroglyphics discovered by Colonel Vyse in the interior of the great pyramid, ..."

That Colonel Vyse discovered them is not in question - certainly not by Prince Pückler-Muskau.

 
Quote

"... knowing that Vyse would have been the first into these upper chambers ..."

Again, and as usual, the crucial step in your argument consists of an unwarranted supposition on your part.  You have a transcript of Pückler-Muskau's thoughts?  Somehow, I doubt it ...  And your comprehension of what he wrote is so poor that I doubt you have any inferential insight into them.

Pückler-Muskau's theory is a non-starter.  It is not at all clear that he was a good judge of these questions, or that he knew or believed that Vyse "would have been the first into" the chambers.  On the contrary, he considered it "not impossible" that "several of the insignificant low, narrow passages and chambers" (my emphasis) "were scooped and built in the pyramids for certain purposes of the priests."
 
Your appeal to the opinion of Pückler-Muskau (desperation if ever I saw it) therefore relies crucially on his having had a level of understanding which plainly he lacked.  But be my guest, and by all means make as much of him as you possibly can in HOAX II ...
Edited by Windowpane
formatting
  • Like 6

Share this post


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

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

Really?

Have they found out about the two radiocarbon assays?

Or, would you even know this.

I'd say not.

Harte

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
1 hour ago, Windowpane said:
 
Er, yes, Scott.  Let me run this past you again.
 
The letter by Pückler-Muskau, published in The Athenaeum, September 21, 1839:
 

That Colonel Vyse discovered them is not in question - certainly not by Prince Pückler-Muskau.

 

Again, and as usual, the crucial step in your argument consists of an unwarranted supposition on your part.  You have a transcript of Pückler-Muskau's thoughts?  Somehow, I doubt it ...  And your comprehension of what he wrote is so poor that I doubt you have any inferential insight into them.

Pückler-Muskau's theory is a non-starter.  It is not at all clear that he was a good judge of these questions, or that he knew or believed that Vyse "would have been the first into" the chambers.  On the contrary, he considered it "not impossible" that "several of the insignificant low, narrow passages and chambers" (my emphasis) "were scooped and built in the pyramids for certain purposes of the priests."
 
Your appeal to the opinion of Pückler-Muskau (desperation if ever I saw it) therefore relies crucially on his having had a level of understanding which plainly he lacked.  But be my guest, and by all means make as much of him as you possibly can in HOAX II ...

Remarkable. The deflection and cognitive dissonance here truly is remarkable.

I will respond to this nonsense more fully tomorrow. 

Once I'm able to pick myself up off the floor from hysterics.

SC

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
3 hours ago, Vaz said:

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

Hiya Vazza!  How ya doin'?  Have I upset you?  You seem happy to reply to other people but you haven't addressed my comments at #494, #501 and #518.  I note the conversation has drifted into other arguments but they are all interlinked and pertinent to your theory.  As recently as #684 you wrote:

            "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"

BUT - I have explained why that statement is simply incorrect.  Wrong.  False.  Mistaken.  Deluded.  Silly.  Ridiculous.  Nonsense.  There is NOTHING in the GP that could have functioned as a machine.  It's IMPOSSIBLE.

I've said before - I'm no Egyptologist.  I have no pet theory to promote.  I'm not here to contribute to debates about:

  • who built the pyramids
  • when they were constructed
  • how they were made
  • why they were built
  • how the location was chosen

Instead I am a scientist, so I can provide insight into claims involving science.  The idea that the GP was designed and built to turn energy from the ground into microwaves is a non-starter.  Why?  Because it's IMPOSSIBLE.

Ask yourself this: was Stonehenge a giant machine?  Did the Sarsen stones given off radiation that was focused by the Trilithons onto the Altar Stone?  If so - what purpose did this serve?  Was it a giant microwave oven (the best way to cook a woolly mammoth whole)?  Or was it a medical device for destroying tumours, akin to modern radiotherapy?  Or was this a way to generate powerful microwave signals to transmit messages into space?  We could speculate and fantasise for ages but the answer to all these questions is (sadly) NO.  Everything hinges on the green sentence being correct, which of course it isn't.

To summarise: some things are POSSIBLE.  Others are IMPOSSIBLE.  Here are some examples:

THINGS THAT ARE POSSIBLE:

  • Stones can be quarried, dragged long distances and carefully stacked to form structures.
  • Electric motors turn electrical energy into kinetic energy.
  • Electric generators turn kinetic energy into electrical energy.

THINGS THAT ARE IMPOSSIBLE:

  • Humans can live for decades without food.
  • Stonehenge was a giant oven.
  • The Great Pyramid was a power station generating microwaves.
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
48 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:
  • The Great Pyramid was a power station generating microwaves.

Yes the main problem is that not only is there no sign of the IC at the time the pyramids were built but before and afterwards too. I would wonder what the microwaves would have been used for - stunning hippopotami perhaps?

Edited by Hanslune
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
2 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yes the main problem is that not only is there no sign of the IC at the time the pyramids were built but before and afterwards too. I would what the microwaves would have been used for - stunning hippopotami perhaps?

5g data streaming on mobile devices. Stunning hyppopotami, that is such a ridiculous assertion...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
5 hours ago, Vaz said:

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

As mentioned by other worthy contributors, the proper term would be evidence. It would appear you have not really studied the topic in a serious manner and tend to rely upon fringe authors and videos for your "information", Perhaps some credible research would be of value in regards to addressing your misconceptions:

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/3874/3299

http://www.aeraweb.org/projects/how-old-are-the-pyramids/

http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/faculty/harrell/Egypt/Harrell_Storemyr_AncientEgyptianQuarries_IllustratedOverview.pdf

http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-pyramid/stone-quarries.html#tura

https://www.academia.edu/4590538/Natural_origin_of_casing_stone_from_the_pyramid_of_Cheops_with_A_Middleton_

http://www.guardians.net/hawass/mortuary1.htm#intro

https://per-storemyr.net/2012/12/30/ten-quarries-of-ancient-egypt-8-the-quarry-at-widan-el-faras-that-disappeared/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-egypt-shipping-mining-farming-economy-pyramids-180956619/

Rest assured that the above represent a very brief review of the topic(s) at hand. The technical material is voluminous. After actually reading and digesting the above, feel free to request additional credible documentation relating to specifics. There are a number of contributors to these pages who are in a position to assist.

Edit: Punctuation.

.

Edited by Swede
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
30 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:
  • Stonehenge was a giant oven.

Your making me want to show up with and steer, my biggest chainsaw and a 3 yard dump full of briquettes when the Vegan followers of Arthur Pendragon and that batty Gibb woman are there holding their Summer Whateverdafukitis.  :yes:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
6 hours ago, Vaz said:

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

If someone researching a pyramid or any other pharaonic monument is indeed serious about said research this is, in fact, not something of any importance to them. There's no evidence the ancient Egyptians even knew the earth was a sphere, much less their precise position on it. They cared very much about Egypt and it's place relative to their immediate neighbors,  but not much more. Otherwise, if you can show well-founded, peer-reviewed research to say otherwise, please feel free to do so.

 For now, however, you were asked a sensible and relevant question, so please cease with evasions and answer it. Thanks.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
7 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

...

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

cormac

I don't understand why fans of the fringe are so set on grasping hold of such sloppy, disproved information. We have a pretty good idea of the tribal peoples inhabiting the Nile Valley in prehistory and we have solid research backing the knowledge  that Egypt didn't become a state or nation until around 3100 BCE. So what's the comic-book nonsense of "12,500  years BP"?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 minute ago, kmt_sesh said:

I don't understand why fans of the fringe are so set on grasping hold of such sloppy, disproved information. We have a pretty good idea of the tribal peoples inhabiting the Nile Valley in prehistory and we have solid research backing the knowledge  that Egypt didn't become a state or nation until around 3100 BCE. So what's the comic-book nonsense of "12,500  years BP"?

Probably because fringies get their history from what amounts to comic books. :D

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

So what's the comic-book nonsense of "12,500  years BP"?

That started with Cayce. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Probably because fringies get their history from what amounts to comic books. :D

cormac

At least comic book creators are honest enough not to present their books as actual history, unlike the sad trash published by fringe authors and the masses of gullible fringe fans who willingly contribute to fringe authors' bank accounts. Just sayin'.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

HThat started with Cayce. 

Goodness. He's one of the great conmen of our modern times. Who could possibly consider him reliable?

  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Goodness. He's one of the great conmen of our modern times. Who could possibly consider him reliable?

A middle school principle that lives next door to me. :no:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

A middle school principle that lives next door to me. :no:

Wow. In my museum work, one of the things that most disturbs me is teachers, willingly dumping such nonsense into the minds of children.

A good example is when a close friend was giving a tour to some schoolchildren and their teacher, a young woman. This teacher asked if she could inject some info to her children, and my friend gave her the floor. They were all standing before a large, wall-mounted map of the continent of Africa. The young teacher pointed to the center of the map and said:

"Look, kids, this is where my family comes from: Czechoslovakia!"

Mind you, this was a teacher.:o

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

Goodnight, all.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Yes the main problem is that not only is there no sign of the IC at the time the pyramids were built but before and afterwards too. I would wonder what the microwaves would have been used for - stunning hippopotami perhaps?

Hippopotamoi. ;)

EDIT: Someone remember to explain this to atalante. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

Edited by jaylemurph
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 11/2/2019 at 3:02 PM, 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

What, exactly, do you mean by "precision"?  No two sides are the same length, and the best joints in the stone aren't anywhere near the standards of today.

The remains of any precise object are always very precise; screws machined to within micrometers of tolerance, holes and connectors exact and smooth, no deviation in any area.  The GP is not precise.

And the stonework is the same type of stonework as we see on other pyramids and temples.

  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

SC: 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?

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.

SC: None of which proves anything. Look--one of the reasons why the glyphs in the Great Pyramid are so important to Egyptologists is that they can assert, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are entirely contemporaneous with the construction and they can make that assertion because these marks were contained within sealed chambers only until relatively recent times.

They simply cannot make such a claim for other gang names found at Giza or elsewhere because the areas where they were found were not entirely inaccessible to human interference unlike the Vyse Chambers. The Giza boat pits, for example. When were the stones that covered this actually laid down to cover the pit? Were any of them ever removed at any time in the past to gain access to the pit for some reason? How old are the actual paint marks here and in places with similar access? This is the problem, Hermione. Unlike the Vyse Chambers, we simply do not know how accessible these other 'monuments' actually were over the past 4,500 years or so. Which is why the palaeography of AE writing becomes important. When, for example, was the boat pit last completely sealed and what evidence is there to support this occurred 4,500 years ago or perhaps much later by the Saite priests?

Consider also the pyramid at El-Lisht, Hermione, which has been attributed by Egyptologists to the Twelfth Dynasty pharaoh, Amenemhet I, because his name was found on fragments of reliefs in the foundations of the pyramid’s funerary temple. They also believe that, for spiritual reasons, Amenemhet I appropriated stones from other pyramids, including Khufu’s, to build his own pyramid, thereby perhaps explaining how the cartouche of Khufu (and other kings) came to be in this pyramid. Stones get pillaged over time from other sites, Hermione.

Hermione: 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. 

SC: Red herring? No. It's an absolutely crucial question. See above.

Hermione: 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: I've seen this ploy used before. When a particular piece of evidence runs contrary to the normal conventions then to hell with the normal conventions and just change them a little in order to assimilate the contradictory evidence. I'm not the one who made the AE writing rules. And I'm not the one who's being forced into bending them to accommodate anomalous text.

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.

Hermione: This is the standard form of the Horus name in a horizontal inscription.  We find it in hieroglyphic contexts also.

SC: Yes because it is evolved (simplified) hieratic. Just like we see other evolved forms of signs in the Khufu gang name that have their best match occurring between dynasties 8-11.

Hermione: The writing on the Merer papyri is in columns.  In such a context the serekh is used.

SC: Yes, when it hasn’t yet evolved into the linear hieratic form which simplified the signs and dispensed with the serekh and palace facade motif.

Hermione: That no one understood this in 1837 is actually an argument against "forgery."

SC: It's an argument against no such thing. All anyone would have to do would be to find these genuine marks upon stones outside the pyramid and copy them inside the pyramid. All you need as your ‘primer’ is the Khufu cartouche among the cache of glyphs and Vyse absolutely knew the Khufu cartouche.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

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: Yes: that Vyse didn't challenge these remarks, but challenged at length the accusations made by (and on behalf of) Caviglia, is telling. 

SC: You’re arguing against your own position here, Hermione. That Vyse felt comfortable enough to challenge Caviglia’s accusations makes us wonder why he appears to have totally ducked those made against him by Pückler-Muskau. He’s happy to challenge Caviglia but not Pückler-Muskau —yes, telling indeed.

Hermione: It tells us that neither Vyse nor anyone else at the time understood these remarks as accusations. 

SC: You’re talking about the 1839 Athenaeum article. At best that article is ambiguous so it’s perfectly understandable why that less clear accusation wasn’t taken seriously. But not so the 1845 accusation which is wholly unambiguous and cannot be mistaken.

Hermione: 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: His 1845 book makes it perfectly clear who he was targeting with his accusation, Hermione.

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.

Hermione: Really, Scott?  All of it?  Every word?  Allow me to remind you of this:

 Quote

SC: 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)

SC: Yes Hermione. I’ve read all of the pages that matter to my argument.

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

 Hermione: 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: It’s not a falsehood, Hermione. Go back and read the Preface in your own book. Any reader reading that Preface who was unfamiliar with the recent history of this issue would reasonably conclude  your book would not be using any material from Vyse’s private journal. There are no caveats or qualifiers to Stower’s statement. He did not go on to say, for example: “However, after some considerable time analysing Vyse’s scrawl, I was eventually able to read some of the more important pages.” But there’s nothing like that. So, as I said, any reader unfamiliar with the subject will get the impression that you gave up trying to read the private journal. Now, from my point of view, I, of course, know that Stower has been able to read a few passages from the private journal. However, my impression is that those few passages is all he has been able to read because your Preface gives the impression that you gave up trying to read any more and thus didn’t find any new important insights. So, Hermione—this is not a falsehood on my part. It’s what I have seen, what I have evidenced from you both. Perhaps making Stower’s statement clearer in your book’s Preface might help clarify your position on the private journal.

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?

Hermione: Why: have you?  Did you insist on such tests, before invoking "Allen's logbook" as evidence?

You want to know?  Read the book.

SC: “Have you?” This is pure deflection from my question, Hermione. I’m going to tell you right now that you haven’t any such empirical evidence to support your conjecture about Walter Allen embellishing his 1954 logbook. There—I’ve thrown down the gauntlet for you. Prove me wrong. But you won’t—because I’m right.

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.

Hermione: 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").

SC: Hermione—remember when I PROVED to you (with documentary evidence) that the date in the chamber was the chamber’s opening date and not Hill’s painting date? You accepted my PROOF of that. So yes—I have proved some of my argument beyond reasonable doubt. So yes, there are points that can be proved (beyond reasonable doubt) and others where the alternative view stretches credibility to breaking point; where it breaks the bounds of simple common sense. Is it realistic, for example, to suggest that Mr Hill didn’t know what day of the week it was? Is it realistic to suggest that Mr Hill did not consult with Vyse about the inscription to be placed on the chamber wall? Is it realistic to suggest that Mr Hill could have misremembered a 6 into a 9? (Perhaps—but then this is contradicted by other evidence where he clearly didn’t misremember. Can you point to any evidence that shows Mr Hill had a poor memory?). Is it realistic that if this were a genuine mistake that it would not have been corrected? Is it realistic that Mr Hill could get this inscription wrong when he got all the others correct? Is it realistic that he would not take great care in getting an important inscription absolutely correct?

Given the above then, on the balance of probability, in my opinion, Mr Hill made no mistake.

I've presented my argument to you Hermione (with supporting evidence) that, as far as I am concerned, gives "a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition." Yes, where necessary, some assumptions have been made but I don’t think any of them are unreasonable. Here's my argument, Hermione: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/219855-giza-pyramid-construction/?do=findComment&comment=6869493

To counter my argument (presented above) you make the claim that Mr Hill merely made a "minor mistake" because he was fallible, he “misremembered”. You give no supporting evidence in support of your counter-claim. Nothing.  Given what I have offered in my own argument, I have to say, what you present as an argument is far from convincing.

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

Hermione: Er, yes, Scott.  Let me run this past you again.

The letter by Pückler-Muskau, published in The Athenaeum, September 21, 1839:

That Colonel Vyse discovered them is not in question - certainly not by Prince Pückler-Muskau.

SC: It most certain IS in question in his later book published in 1845. Let me run this past you again:

Quote

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. - Prince Pückler-Muskau, 1845.

 SC: Notice what he has written in his opening sentence there, Hermione: “...The hieroglyphics said to have been discovered...” The short phrase “said to have” is very revealing, Hermione, as it qualifies his further comment about Vyse’s ‘discovery’. This short qualifying phrase is here to cast doubt upon what Vyse ‘discovered’. It’s like saying, “The hieroglyphics, alleged to have been discovered by Colonel Vyse...” or “The hieroglyphics, believed to have been discovered by Colonel Vyse...”  He then goes on to spell out for us precisely the nature of his doubt i.e. that the hieroglyphics said to have been (ahem) ‘discovered’ by Vyse “...have perhaps been lately pencilled on the wall.”

Hermione: Again, and as usual, the crucial step in your argument consists of an unwarranted supposition on your part.  You have a transcript of Pückler-Muskau's thoughts? 

SC: His ‘thoughts’ were certainly ambiguous in the 1839 article where your co-author has made the “unwarranted supposition” of what was meant. The 1845 book entirely clarifies his position.

Hermione: And your comprehension of what he wrote is so poor that I doubt you have any inferential insight into them.

SC: Comprehension? Go back and look at what your co-author thought Pückler-Muskau was meaning in his 1839 then compare with my interpretation of his 1845 statement. I think it is perfectly clear who has better understood Pückler-Muskau and it’s categorically not the co-author of your book. Seems like this might be something else you’ll have to revise in your book.

Hermione: Pückler-Muskau's theory is a non-starter. 

SC: BREAKING NEWS: Staunch defender of Colonel Vyse rejects witness testimony accusing the Colonel of fraud.

Who knew?

Hermione: It is not at all clear that he was a good judge of these questions, or that he knew or believed that Vyse "would have been the first into" the chambers. 

SC: Hermione, in 1839 Pückler-Muskau explored “...every part [of the Great Pyramid] which was open...” He observed the inferior work of Vyse’s tunnelling to access the upper chambers. He absolutely would have known Vyse was first into those chambers. Your line of argumentation here is simply absurd.

Hermione: On the contrary, he considered it "not impossible" that "several of the insignificant low, narrow passages and chambers" (my emphasis) "were scooped and built in the pyramids for certain purposes of the priests."

SC: Now go to his updated 1845 comment, Hermione. (Incidentally, in spite of what you imagine, his 1839 comment does not make an explicit causal link between the chamber hieroglyphics and his belief in the priests digging passages. It simply doesn’t.).

Hermione: Your appeal to the opinion of Pückler-Muskau (desperation if ever I saw it) therefore relies crucially on his having had a level of understanding which plainly he lacked.

SC: See above. He was at the scene of the crime, Hermione. He knew perfectly well that Vyse was first into those chambers. FGS – his own book was published 5 years after the publication of Operations so he would have had plenty of time to familiarise himself with the pertinent facts. And his published account clearly demonstrates he had perfect understanding of the chambers and passages that Vyse had created. Your attempting to gloss over this obvious fact is the only desperation on display here.

Hermione: But be my guest, and by all means make as much of him as you possibly can in HOAX II ...

SC: Oh, I will. And more besides...

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
14 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Yes the main problem is that not only is there no sign of the IC at the time the pyramids were built but before and afterwards too. I would wonder what the microwaves would have been used for - stunning hippopotami perhaps?

According to Dunn's detailed scientific analysis the microwaves were clearly directed upwards, emerging 200 ft up the pyramid at about 45°.  So unless your hippopotami are flying hippos your idea is just silly.

ON THE OTHER HAND...  I haven't seen any of you self-proclaimed so-called experts prove that hippos never flew.  So it remains possible that the Atlanteans trained bomb-laden hippos to fly at Egyptian (or their anonymous ancestors') monuments during the Great Mediterranean War of 11963 BC, so the Egyptians (or their anonymous ancestors) developed microwave cannons to shoot them down.  

Of course some of you will mock this notion, saying there is no evidence for it.  But there is no evidence that the Sun is hot - have you ever been there?  There is no evidence that the Earth is round, or America exists, or penguins like rhubarb, but we all accept these as facts.  So why not simply accept the evidence of the pyramids?  Why else would the microwave beam point into the sky?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5

Share this post


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

SC: What I see in your first image is a mixture of columnar and linear hieratic markings ...

 
I am not going to comment in detail on your fanciful palaeography.
 
I merely note that changes in handwriting are not comparable to rolling out a new piece of software.  Wrong paradigm ...
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

According to Dunn's detailed scientific analysis the microwaves were clearly directed upwards, emerging 200 ft up the pyramid at about 45°.  So unless your hippopotami are flying hippos your idea is just silly.

ON THE OTHER HAND...  I haven't seen any of you self-proclaimed so-called experts prove that hippos never flew.  So it remains possible that the Atlanteans trained bomb-laden hippos to fly at Egyptian (or their anonymous ancestors') monuments during the Great Mediterranean War of 11963 BC, so the Egyptians (or their anonymous ancestors) developed microwave cannons to shoot them down.  

Of course some of you will mock this notion, saying there is no evidence for it.  But there is no evidence that the Sun is hot - have you ever been there?  There is no evidence that the Earth is round, or America exists, or penguins like rhubarb, but we all accept these as facts.  So why not simply accept the evidence of the pyramids?  Why else would the microwave beam point into the sky?

You have the skills and thinking processes to be a great fringe guru!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 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.