Giza Pyramid construction

November 7, 2019

27 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Carbon. Dioxide. Geysers.

Same answer as above, really. It neatly encapsulates your rejection of reality for your personal fiction.

—Jaylemurph

Well that is more like a delusion based on his personal bias. I mean he believes it but also knows there is zilch evidence in favor of such.

Lies: He likes to create strawmen when he knows them to not be true: Like ramps not existing

AE language violates Zipf Law: he's known for a long time that the PT contains only a fraction of the words in the greater AE language but he continues to claim it violates ZL and refuses to provide evidence that it does...he is lying when he claims the language violates ZL.

That he states with some variation the following: " every Egyptologist on earth essentially has the same beliefs that the great pyramids were built by changeless superstitious stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps"

Well no that is just a strawman argument he made up and is rather childish - just showing the intense hatred he as for Egyptologist - so he's lying about changless, superstition, bumpkins and 'dragging tombs up ramps'.

He has stated thousands of times that he can determine the meaning of AE/PT 'in context' but meanings he has made up for symbols don't fit into all the places he says they will. He know this but refuses to acknowledge it - lying.

He likes to state he answers all questions but in reality he only answers those that he likes, so lying

He likes to state that Egyptology is wholly wrong about everything - implying he's an expert in every aspect of Egyptology - clearly a lie

He has stated hundreds of times that no science is being done at Giza - either since Petrie or other time frames - he has been shown he is wrong but continues to make such statements - lying again

He has stated that no Egyptologist will talk to him - unfortunately for him Egyptologists at the Hall of Ma'at have talked to him - and left him bloody on a variety of subjects...so lying again

ETC, ETC, ETC

Edited November 7, 2019 by Hanslune

November 7, 2019

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Is it a "fact" there were "10 times as many crews"? And what about the Tura casing stones which is part of the extra work I was talking about that would have been part of this 10yrs after the 17th year found in the RC? Again, this part of the extra work would include the temples, satellite pyramids, causeway (a feature Herodotus claims took 10yrs by itself), mastabas, boat pits ect.

It's a fact that there were enough people to have ten times the number working on the base as on the upper levels. Actual counts aren't possible, you know.

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Ironically you argue that it took the same amount of time to finish the last 10% of the core as it did the lower 90%, for posterity lets say it only took 10yrs to get us from the 17th year in the RC to the 27th year supposedly noted in the Merer diary, yet by the same token argue we still haven't even done the cladding yet having to have been done after the core was completed which, again, does not even include the causeway, temples, queen's pyramids (approximately 100ft high in their own right), mastabas, boat pits, ect. So according to you we have arrived at the 27th year yet how long do you think the rest took and who did the work?

No, I said it wouldn't surprise me. Not as ironic as you claim.

Sorry if my posts don't comply with what you wish I had said.

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

When considering how to fit the construction time of G1 into Khufu's reign, the fact is it is Akhet Khufu as a whole that needs to be considered, not just the pyramid itself. .

No. This all comes from Tallet. Merer makes no mention of what this Tura limestone was being used for nor where it was going specifically other than it was being transported to the various ports of Akhet-Khufu-the G1 necropolis. G1's satellite pyramids were also clad in Tura limestone no differently than G1 as were some mastabas. Ironically even some of the core blocks near the top are Tura limestone.

You want to argue with me about something, but it appears you (or Hanslune) did not make it past the 1st paragraph and are just ignoring the rest. My point is related to the provenance of the Merer diary which the bulk of my original post says:

Ankhhaf (son of Sneferu), mentioned in Merer's Diary, is an interesting fellow who it appears died sometime during the reign of Khafre. A reassessment of the building of his mastaba G7510, the largest at Giza, suggests it was begun at the end of Khufu's reign in which construction continued though the reign of Khafre. The date given associated with the Merer Diary, the 13th cattle count, or "27th year of Khufu's reign", does not actually does not mention Khufu by name and does not come from Merer's Diary, but rather some administrative document fragments found nearby. According to Tallet:

So it is these other indiscriminate documents that mention a "13th cattle count", which neither these documents of the Merer diary mention Khufu the person by name, with the only reason this is assumed to be Khufu's reign, for one, the "archaeological context" it is found which is ultimately the 4th Dynasty in general which I'd like to know what it is exactly that would place it specifically in Khufu's reign, but more importantly that it is also assumed the work performed at Akhet-Khufu, again the G1 pyramid complex and not the necessarily the pyramid itself, was being performed by Ankhhaf during Khufu's reign. The rub, however, is that there is no verification Ankhhaf was vizier under Khufu in which Reisner, among others, thought he was actually vizier under Khafre, perhaps as I would suggest the possibility under Djedefre as well. If we consider the year of the 11th cattle count in the Khufu I boat pit actually noting the reign of Djedefre, as some Egyptologists have suggested, it is no great stretch considering Ankhhaf was alive, perhaps as late as even working as a vizier under Khafre, that this may be reffering to the 13th cattle count of Djedfre's reign, not Khufu-a time when the boat pits and peripheral structures were being built after G1 had been completed.

Given the year of the 17th cattle count in the RC almost certainly refers to the 17th year of Khufu reign and not 34th, a single year for the cattle count and not two, it stands to reason the 11th year cattle count in the Khufu I boat pit, clearly associated with Djedfre, and the 13th year of the associated Merer diary documents, are also a single year count. All things considered, I suggest this speaks highly against these cattle counts belonging to the reign of Khufu, but rather to another pharaoh which the most likely candidate to me is Djedefre.

Can't speak for Hans, but I'll say for myself that your post holds no interest for me, and I wasn't talking about you or what you said.

I stand by what I posted.

Maybe you should read that.

Harte

November 7, 2019

42 minutes ago, Harte said:

[snip]

And yet it is you who responded to it in the first place...?

Regardless, thankfully your "lack of interest" is by no means a credible arbiter of what is actually interesting or not. And no, I wouldn't be interested in it if I were you either. Good for you Harte.

November 7, 2019

10 hours ago, Hanslune said:

He's well aware of this - like everything else he simply ignores the evidence and calls it an incline plane...lol

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1165838,1165839#msg-1165839

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1165838,1165838#msg-1165838

Not to mention this: Valley Temple of Unas RAMP

Here.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Thanos5150

November 7, 2019

#806

SC: Ah, so now you can read my thoughts, Hermione? You have no idea how I understand the process of rolling out a new piece of software—you’re not inside my head. If you do not understand how hieroglyphic signs changed over time into their ever more simplified hieratic forms then read Moeller or Goedicke. It’s a simple fact that cannot be disputed. Earlier forms of hieratic were generally written in columns, later generally in linear form. Do you dispute this?

You yourself are scarcely in a position to complain about mindreading. You've read the minds of Egyptian scribes; you've read the minds of Hill and Vyse; you've even read my co-author's mind, in your imagination.

It's a matter of considering the odd things you say, wondering where you got them from and then considering your background. Do you imagine that rolling out software is a deeply esoteric practice, that no one else knows about?

Here you do exactly what I was describing: you talk about changes in scribal practice as if they were a matter of rolling out the new version, completely replacing the old. Have some consideration for the evidence, and the sparsity of the evidence. Stop being in such a rush to stand in judgement over it. The conclusion you're trying to engineer is farcically undersupported, given how few examples we have of hieratic (and related scripts?) of this period.

We are not talking here about papyri. We are talking about ˤpr names. There is no constraint of context which says that they must be written one way or the other. It seems if anything to have been left to the preference of the scribe, or perhaps a senior scribe. We have examples (as we saw when we looked beyond your cartouches taken out of context) of a mixed arrangement: columnar cartouches with the characters following them set out horizontally: as clear an illustration as one could wish for of the coexistence of styles.

SC: There is nothing “pseudo-palaeography” about the fact that the AEs hieratic writing evolved from being written in columns to the linear form. Are you disputing this?

Your use of "evolved" says pseudo-palaeography. You are importing assumptions again. Have you spotted any transitional forms yet? Again: different styles coexisted; the choice between them depended on genre and context, or was arbitrary, left to the preference of the scribe or senior scribe.

November 7, 2019

#807

SC: Oh I’ve followed the ‘debate’ perfectly fine. You entirely undermined your own point (above). If you don’t see the obviousness of that then, alas, there’s not a whole lot I can do to help you.

Which just goes to show that you haven't followed the argument - and again, your declaring that something is "obvious" is not an argument.

SC: No excuses from me, Hermione. You’re simply avoiding the fact that the prince’s more recent comment takes precedence over his former comment and clinging desperately onto the ambiguous comment because it’s all you have. But it simply doesn’t help your position. Because you are not thinking this through logically. Consider – Vyse spoke with Pückler-Muskau at Giza in the latter part of February, 1837. Now, this isn’t mentioned by Vyse in his published account but I know for a fact (from having read Vyse’s private journal) that he discussed Wellington’s Chamber with Pückler-Muskau. As I said, this conversation took place between the two men in the latter part of February 1837, weeks before Wellington’s Chamber had finally been breached and entered for the first time since the Great Pyramid was built and these chambers sealed.

That you should choose to describe your interlocutor as "clinging" to anything is probably more a comment on your thinking than it is on mine.

When was "the prince's more recent comment" made? I can only suppose that you have overlooked this:

Quote

The following work has lain in my portfolio for a considerable time, precisely as it now appears, in every essential point. A final revision was all that was requisite to complete it for publication. I believe this delay will not do the work any injury, for the interest of the public in the affairs of Egypt was at the time it was written almost blunted by the redundant competition which prevailed, and they may now be glad to read an unaltered description of that country as it then was, and as it has unhappily ceased to be.

This being the opening paragraph of the preface of Egypt Under Mehemet Ali (1845), a translation of Pückler-Muskau's Aus Mehemed Aliʼs Reich (1844).

So, how long was this "considerable time"? A close comparison tells us:

Quote

... I can consider as nothing more than tumuli these rude attempts at art, without sculpture, without hieroglyphics, which, though surrounded in the time of Herodotus with temples, sphinxes, and other magnificent works, all covered with hieroglyphics, were regarded as ancient monuments, and left with pious veneration in their original simplicity.

The hieroglyphics discovered by Colonel Vyse in the interior of the great pyramid, are not cut in the stone, but put on, as if with a finger dipped in some colour, probably at a period comparatively recent; and it is far from impossible that the low and narrow passages, through which one can scarcely creep on one's hands and knees, so disproportioned to such enormous masses of stone, have been broken out for their own purposes by the priests long after their erection, in the same way as we sink a shaft in a mine, or effect less systematically the openings recently made in them. (Athenaeum, September 21, 1839: 723-4)

Quote

... 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.

The hieroglyphics, said to have been lately 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. 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. (Egypt Under Mehemet Ali [1845] [footnote inserted in text at the point at which it is referenced]).

So similar are these passages as to strongly suggest their being variant translations of the same original. (Hermann, being German, most likely wrote in German—and actually, he did: the letters published in the Athenaeum were translations.)

So we can be pretty confident that Pückler-Muskau's original text - the part translated here, at least, in all of its essentials - was written no later than September 1839 (and probably earlier: see below).

To underline the point, here are the variants on an earlier passage (one I am sure you would rather not see or acknowledge):

Quote

Athenaeum (1839):

... Harmless jesting apart, I believe the amateur in question, the gallant and amiable Col. Howard Vyse, is very likely from his acuteness and perseverance, to make important discoveries; and every stranger must feel thankful to him for having employed many of his workmen in clearing out the passages of the two great pyramids, which were almost choked with rubbish. He has found some small chambers hitherto unknown, and is in hopes of discovering a large apartment beneath the supposed royal tomb. It will, however, be better to begin my story at the beginning.

Quote

Egypt Under Mehemet Ali (1845):

... But joking apart, I have confidence in the gallant and worthy Colonel Howard Vyse, and that by his perseverance and acuteness, he, sooner than many others, will at length make important discoveries; every stranger must certainly be grateful that he employs a portion of his workmen in clearing the rubbish out of the passages in the two largest Pyramids, and thus renders them in some degree accessible to the antiquary. He has found some hitherto unknown small chambers, and even hopes that he is not far from discovering a large apartment, under the supposed royal tomb. It will, however, now be better to begin my narrative at the beginning.

Besides the similarity, we see also that these statements could only have been true in 1837, so it's probably fair to conclude that the original letter was written then.

SC: What you are effectively trying to claim is that, with this knowledge that Vyse was still trying to breach Wellington’s Chamber in February 1837, that Pückler-Muskau somehow believed that some priests had beat Vyse to it, had entered this chamber (and the others), painted marks on the walls, departed from the chamber(s) and managed to perfectly reseal the access shaft back to its original state.

Sure, Hermione. That makes perfect, logical sense. In some other alternative reality.

Remember what Pückler-Muskau wrote about the shafts "we ourselves have of late seen undertaken by the English in these colossal monuments, though less systematically, and with inferior means?" It's quoted above. Pückler-Muskau thought that the ancient Egyptians did such things better. Given that assumption, he might very well have believed that the priests "had beat[en] Vyse to it."

SC: The inference is perfectly clear, Hermione.

And again, your declaration that something is "perfectly clear" is not an argument. I suggest you reconsider your use of the phrase.

I gave an example of what would have been a "perfectly clear" statement on Pückler-Muskau’s part: "Oberst Wyse hat die Hieroglyphen gefälscht!"

What you offer falls far short of it.

SC: You’d be surprised just how much your co-author has promulgated his thoughts all over the internet over the past 20+ years. Moreover, with regards to “this subject” (i.e. Vyse’s private journal), your co-author’s thoughts seem perfectly clear in the Preface of your book. The facts of this, as they presently stand, give the impression that you and your co-author gave up on a primary source when writing your book. That’s not a lie. That’s not an untruth. That’s not a falsehood. It’s how it looks, Hermione. Now, if you have[/u] [sic] used pages/passages from Colonel Vyse’s private journal in your co-authored book, then fine. But you might want to consider making that clearer to your readers in a revised Preface that you have done so.

Why would I be surprised? What an odd thing to say.

You've been told more than once that your allegation is false, with reasons given - and yet you return to it, again and again. What this says about your honesty, I leave to the reader. Allow me to remind you of this.

Do you imagine that this just announced itself? That it was found without Martin having seached for it? That he could have found it without having already made some progress with the writing?

And what do we find as Fig. 6.5 on page 63 of HOAX?

And what do we hear of again and again in the podcasts promoting HOAX?

After all you've written about how hard the handwriting is, you tell us now that you've read the journal - all of it, with no qualification. Where is the evidence of this? Where can we see your transcript of (say) ten consecutive pages? What did you do about the images which "were of insufficient quality to make a proper analysis" (HOAX, pp. 160-161) - as mentioned quite recently? But we see that your answer to that is this: "I’ve read all of the pages that matter to my argument".

But, despite what you say, you have not after all actually read the journal.

However: do tell us how many pages "matter to" your argument ...

SC: More deflection, trying to turn the discussion away from the question I actually asked you to answer. Won’t work. Focus Hermione. Clearly I am right with my assertion that you have not tested the ink in Walter Allen’s logbook – a process that would (if your conjecture was true) have provided you with solid ‘proof’ that your conjecture was true. Indeed, all you had to say was that you have had the ink in Allen’s logbook tested – you don;t even need to disclose the result. That would be a real teaser for folks. But you can’t even say that. It’s also perfectly evident that you don’t have this ‘proof’ because if you did have such, I know you well enough to know that you wouldn’t be slow to ram it down my throat to prove your point and shut me up.

Again: you didn't demand that the ink be tested before you set about promoting the "logbook" as evidence, talking it up with surely some of the weakest "arguments" ever to see print.

SC: Link?? [Shrugs] Your claim that Mr Hill made a mistake in writing the chamber opening date due to “misremembering” requires you offer something more substantial than the cubed root of hee-haw to support your claim that Mr Hill “misremembered”. Then your claim would have some substance, a base upon which to stand. As you present it, it is completely baseless. Imagine a court case where a person’s poor memory was central to the defence’s case. Do you really think that the prosecution would simply accept the person’s mere word that they have a bad memory without some documentary evidence to support their claim? You can’t just make such a claim and expect it to be accepted without question, without some evidential support.

No such claim was made. Try reading carefully. It was one possibility considered.

And again the imaginary courtroom. Sadly we're unlikely to see your "aborted fraud" nonsense tested in that environment.

SC: Only because I know you well enough over the years, Hermione, that when you can offer an answer, you usually do. It’s in your nature. Thus your refusal to substantiate your own position here is, well, telling.

Then let it tell what it tells, without the ventriloquist act.

SC: Dating mistakes in the other chambers? Dating mistakes on his facsimile sheets? Comments perhaps made by Colonel Vyse that Mr Hill forgot to do something due to him having a poor memory? That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure you’re capable enough to think of other possible avenues by which this question can be further explored. But, as I said above - to make a claim without anything to substantiate it simply means your position shouldn’t and likely won’t be taken seriously by any objective observer. Conversely, I can point to the fact the Mr Hill made no mistakes with near identical tasks, which goes to his reliability.

Not making mistakes as a general rule doesn't mean one might not make a mistake on one isolated occasion.

SC: Except the truth, Hermione, is that there actually is evidence. But that evidence points to the complete opposite conclusion to the one you’re seeking. And because that evidence strongly suggests there was nothing wrong with Mr Hill’s memory, then that evidence is to be ignored and dismissed by you - because it doesn’t support your conjecture; because it’s inconvenient to you. But again – it won’t wash with objective folks.

You are not "objective folks." And we have yet to see this evidence.

SC: I know you said that. And it’s simply not a convincing defence. If that is to be the basis of your ‘defence’ then, as I’ve stated a few times now, you have to try and somehow substantiate it because, as the evidence currently stands, the precise opposite is being demonstrated in terms of Mr Hill’s fallibility of doing near identical tasks. The evidence elsewhere shows he was perfectly dependable and made no mistakes.

It's not a defence. My position is not a response to yours. The question of the discrepant dates is discussed in Strange Journey.

Saying that Hill was "perfectly" anything scarcely needs comment.

November 7, 2019

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

And yet it is you who responded to it in the first place...?

Regardless, thankfully your "lack of interest" is by no means a credible arbiter of what is actually interesting or not. And no, I wouldn't be interested in it if I were you either. Good for you Harte.

What interests me is the only thing I'm interested in.

Vague assertions about Merer and cattle counts, made in amorphous ways that cloud the point, are not interesting to many.

I usually don't stop to consider how other posters will respond when I voice my opinion, and seldom do they try to reword my posts as assertions, unless they need straw men to argue with.

Harte

November 7, 2019

SC: Ah, so now you can read my thoughts, Hermione? You have no idea how I understand the process of rolling out a new piece of software—you’re not inside my head. If you do not understand how hieroglyphic signs changed over time into their ever more simplified hieratic forms then read Moeller or Goedicke. It’s a simple fact that cannot be disputed. Earlier forms of hieratic were generally written in columns, later generally in linear form. Do you dispute this?

Hermione: You yourself are scarcely in a position to complain about mindreading. You've read the minds of Egyptian scribes; you've read the minds of Hill and Vyse; you've even read my co-author's mind, in your imagination.

SC: Sure. If you say so.

Hermione: It's a matter of considering the odd things you say, wondering where you got them from and then considering your background. Do you imagine that rolling out software is a deeply esoteric practice, that no one else knows about?

SC: Ummm – no. I’ve not even been giving your analogy any thought because it’s completely bogus.

Hermione: Here you do exactly what I was describing: you talk about changes in scribal practice as if they were a matter of rolling out the new version, completely replacing the old.

SC: Much of the time that’s not what a software rollout does. Very rarely will you find that a software rollout completely replaces the “old” version. (Migrating from WordStar to WordPerfect would be a complete replacement). However, compare the first version of MS Word and compare it with its most recent incarnation. There are many transitional versions in between. You will also find that some features in the new version are the same or similar to the older versions although there will be many differences too. So not completely replacing the old but rather gradually evolving from one form into another. Which is what I have been saying all along about the AE writing and what scholars such as Wilkinson, Gardiner, Allen, Gooedicke et al say too. Unless you know differently, I think you need to come up with a better analogy of what you think it is I’m arguing.

Hermione: Have some consideration for the evidence, and the sparsity of the evidence. Stop being in such a rush to stand in judgement over it.

SC: Translation – “Stop making life difficult for us.” This is totally rich. Egyptologists routinely declare this or that monument was built by this or that person based often on the flimsiest of evidence. Once again--do as we say, not as we do. Over and above which, I am saying only what the ‘et als’ are saying: AE writing evolved from being written wholly in columnar form, through a transition phase where it was mixed and then to its final transition from around 1800 BC of being predominantly written in rows.

Hermione: The conclusion you're trying to engineer is farcically undersupported, given how few examples we have of hieratic (and related scripts?) of this period.

SC: See above about Egyptologists basing their conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence.

Hermione: We are not talking here about papyri. We are talking about ˤpr names.

SC: We’re actually talking about AE writing. There’s enough to make a comparison of gang names which, when we do, they do seem to follow the same general evolution principal of AE writing generally that the academics insist took place i.e. from column, transitional to being written wholly in rows. Here:

Hermione: There is no constraint of context which says that they must be written one way or the other. It seems if anything to have been left to the preference of the scribe, or perhaps a senior scribe. We have examples (as we saw when we looked beyond your cartouches taken out of context) of a mixed arrangement: columnar cartouches with the characters following them set out horizontally: as clear an illustration as one could wish for of the coexistence of styles.

SC: Indeed, there seems to have been a period where different styles coexisted. But, according to the et als, by around 1800 BC, hieratic script was predominantly written in rows. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the et als.

If we then take this evolution of AE script from columnar to linear as a ‘general rule’, then, on the balance of probability, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the gang names written fully in horizontal fashion are more likely to have come from a later period than the earlier period i.e. they likely came after 1800 BC. No, we cannot be absolutely certain of this BUT, on the balance of probability, that is what this evidence suggests. And what is also supportive of this later date for the fully horizontal script (#3 in the above image) is the fact that we find two signs there that find their closest palaeographic match between dynasties 8-11, which is not too far from 1800 BC thereby adding some corroboration that this gang name is from a much later period.

SC: There is nothing “pseudo-palaeography” about the fact that the AEs hieratic writing evolved from being written in columns to the linear form. Are you disputing this?

Hermione: Your use of "evolved" says pseudo-palaeography. You are importing assumptions again. Have you spotted any transitional forms yet? Again: different styles coexisted; the choice between them depended on genre and context, or was arbitrary, left to the preference of the scribe or senior scribe.

SC: See above.

SC

Edited November 7, 2019 by Scott Creighton

November 7, 2019

SC: Oh I’ve followed the ‘debate’ perfectly fine. You entirely undermined your own point (above). If you don’t see the obviousness of that then, alas, there’s not a whole lot I can do to help you.

Hermione: Which just goes to show that you haven't followed the argument - and again, your declaring that something is "obvious" is not an argument.

SC: Let’s look at this. In this regard you wrote:

Quote

...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...

SC: That Vyse could not have understood these remarks “as accusations” is merely your opinion and flies in the face of basic common sense. There’s simply no way that Vyse could have understood the remark by Pückler-Muskau in his 1845 book as anything but an accusation that the marks were placed in those chambers recently, thereby inferring fakery by Vyse. If this 1845 remark could be understood in any other way, then do enlighten us, Hermione—how else might Vyse have understood this remark if not that the marks were recently placed on the walls (ergo faked)? How exactly?

And so, accepting that Vyse could not have failed to ‘get’ what Pückler-Muskau was implying with his remark, why then do you think Vyse did not challenge the Prussian Prince for his (implied) accusation in the same manner he challenged Caviglia over his allegations? What’s your explanation for this?

SC: No excuses from me, Hermione. You’re simply avoiding the fact that the prince’s more recent comment takes precedence over his former comment and clinging desperately onto the ambiguous comment because it’s all you have. But it simply doesn’t help your position. Because you are not thinking this through logically. Consider – Vyse spoke with Pückler-Muskau at Giza in the latter part of February, 1837. Now, this isn’t mentioned by Vyse in his published account but I know for a fact (from having read Vyse’s private journal) that he discussed Wellington’s Chamber with Pückler-Muskau. As I said, this conversation took place between the two men in the latter part of February 1837, weeks before Wellington’s Chamber had finally been breached and entered for the first time since the Great Pyramid was built and these chambers sealed.

Hermione: That you should choose to describe your interlocutor as "clinging" to anything is probably more a comment on your thinking than it is on mine.

SC: But that is exactly what you’re doing. You’re clinging to a piece of text published in 1839 which, if my maths is correct, is 6 years before 1845.

Hermione: When was "the prince's more recent comment" made? I can only suppose that you have overlooked this:

Quote

“The following work has lain in my portfolio for a considerable time, precisely as it now appears, in every essential point. A final revision was all that was requisite to complete it for publication...”

SC: No. I didn’t overlooked it, Hermione. I even notice that, once again, you are making my argument for me. Allow me: “A final revision was all that was requisite to complete it for publication...” – a publication that took place in 1845. When comparing his 1839 and 1845 writings, it should be evident to you, I would think, what the Prussian Prince revised and made clearer for us before publication in 1845.

[snip]

SC: What you are effectively trying to claim is that, with this knowledge that Vyse was still trying to breach Wellington’s Chamber in February 1837, that Pückler-Muskau somehow believed that some priests had beat Vyse to it, had entered this chamber (and the others), painted marks on the walls, departed from the chamber(s) and managed to perfectly reseal the access shaft back to its original state.

Sure, Hermione. That makes perfect, logical sense. In some other alternative reality.

Hermione: Remember what Pückler-Muskau wrote about the shafts "we ourselves have of late seen undertaken by the English in these colossal monuments, though less systematically, and with inferior means?" It's quoted above. Pückler-Muskau thought that the ancient Egyptians did such things better. Given that assumption, he might very well have believed that the priests "had beat[en] Vyse to it."

SC: Hermione—please tell me you are not seriously suggesting here that the ancient Egyptians tunnelled a better shaft up to the Vyse Chambers to paint some marks onto the walls there and then, for some reason, decided to reseal all those chambers with replacement granite blocks? If this is going to be your defence on this then there is nothing much else to discuss here because this is simply—and I’ll be as kind as I possibly can here—delusional claptrap.

SC: The inference is perfectly clear, Hermione.

Hermione: And again, your declaration that something is "perfectly clear" is not an argument. I suggest you reconsider your use of the phrase.

I gave an example of what would have been a "perfectly clear" statement on Pückler-Muskau’s part: "Oberst Wyse hat die Hieroglyphen gefälscht!"

What you offer falls far short of it.

SC: Your silly word games won’t crack it either, Hermione. The inference is plain as day in Pückler-Muskau’s (revised) 1845 publication. You can try and spin and squirm your way around it but this inference of Vyse perpetrating a fraud is not going to go away any time soon.

SC: You’d be surprised just how much your co-author has promulgated his thoughts all over the internet over the past 20+ years. Moreover, with regards to “this subject” (i.e. Vyse’s private journal), your co-author’s thoughts seem perfectly clear in the Preface of your book. The facts of this, as they presently stand, give the impression that you and your co-author gave up on a primary source when writing your book. That’s not a lie. That’s not an untruth. That’s not a falsehood. It’s how it looks, Hermione. Now, if you have[/u] [sic] used pages/passages from Colonel Vyse’s private journal in your co-authored book, then fine. But you might want to consider making that clearer to your readers in a revised Preface that you have done so.

Hermione: Why would I be surprised?

SC: Sure Hermione. You don’t know what a rhetorical quip is, do you?

Hermione: What an odd thing to say.

SC: Nothing odd about it, Hermione. If you cannot accept honest criticism of your work then I fear my “odd thing” will become the least of your concerns.

[snip]

Hermione: After all you've written about how hard the handwriting is,

SC: How many years ago did I say that? Do you think people’s knowledge of things stays the same for all time?

Hermione: ...you tell us now that you've read the journal - all of it, with no qualification.

SC: Show me where I said I’ve “...read the journal - all of it...”? (My emphasis). Read what I’ve actually written, Hermione and not what you think I’ve written.

[snip].

SC: More deflection, trying to turn the discussion away from the question I actually asked you to answer. Won’t work. Focus Hermione. Clearly I am right with my assertion that you have not tested the ink in Walter Allen’s logbook – a process that would (if your conjecture was true) have provided you with solid ‘proof’ that your conjecture was true. Indeed, all you had to say was that you have had the ink in Allen’s logbook tested – you don’t even need to disclose the result. That would be a real teaser for folks. But you can’t even say that. It’s also perfectly evident that you don’t have this ‘proof’ because if you did have such, I know you well enough to know that you wouldn’t be slow to ram it down my throat to prove your point and shut me up.

Hermione: Again: you didn't demand that the ink be tested before you set about promoting the "logbook" as evidence, talking it up with surely some of the weakest "arguments" ever to see print.

SC: I had no reason to doubt the logbook was written by Allen in 1954. Indeed, even you accept it was written then but embellished more recently. So yours is the position that requires proof of ink analysis to show that two different inks were used. Mine doesn't.

But I’m right, aren’t I, Hermione? You’ve not had the ink in Allen’s logbook scientifically analysed to determine if the ink is from two different times, have you? The one thing that would have given the argument you put forward in your book a basis in fact and you don’t even have such ‘proof’. Pardon me then if I consider your accusation that Walter Allen altered his logbook as nothing more than pure speculation by you and your co-author.

SC: Link?? [Shrugs] Your claim that Mr Hill made a mistake in writing the chamber opening date due to “misremembering” requires you offer something more substantial than the cubed root of hee-haw to support your claim that Mr Hill “misremembered”. Then your claim would have some substance, a base upon which to stand. As you present it, it is completely baseless. Imagine a court case where a person’s poor memory was central to the defence’s case. Do you really think that the prosecution would simply accept the person’s mere word that they have a bad memory without some documentary evidence to support their claim? You can’t just make such a claim and expect it to be accepted without question, without some evidential support.

Hermione: No such claim was made. Try reading carefully. It was one possibility considered.

SC: We can all play the “possibility” game, Hermione, but what evidence can you actually point to that would help take your “possibility” into the realm of “probability”? Anything at all?

Hermione: And again the imaginary courtroom. Sadly we're unlikely to see your "aborted fraud" nonsense tested in that environment.

SC: Hermione, you may only come to a conclusion of “nonsense” when you have the full facts of my argument before you and have considered them carefully—but not before then. We get as many of the facts first and then we draw our conclusions. That’s how science works, Hermione. I would have thought you knew that?

SC: Only because I know you well enough over the years, Hermione, that when you can offer an answer, you usually do. It’s in your nature. Thus your refusal to substantiate your own position here is, well, telling.

Hermione: Then let it tell what it tells, without the ventriloquist act.

SC: “Ventriloquest act”? And here was me thinking it was a cordial debate. That you have the cubed root of hee-haw to substantiate your position isn’t my fault or my problem. If you want your position to be taken seriously then get a real body of evidence together as opposed to a ventriloquist’s dummy which is basically all hollow inside but talks a good game.

SC: Dating mistakes in the other chambers? Dating mistakes on his facsimile sheets? Comments perhaps made by Colonel Vyse that Mr Hill forgot to do something due to him having a poor memory? That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure you’re capable enough to think of other possible avenues by which this question can be further explored. But, as I said above - to make a claim without anything to substantiate it simply means your position shouldn’t and likely won’t be taken seriously by any objective observer. Conversely, I can point to the fact the Mr Hill made no mistakes with near identical tasks, which goes to his reliability.

Hermione: Not making mistakes as a general rule doesn't mean one might not make a mistake on one isolated occasion.

SC: This is true, Hermione. However, ‘balance of probability’ would tend to rule otherwise I would suggest. At the end of the day, the doubt will remains and that is not good for the orthodox position which needs certainty as to the provenance of the painted marks in these chambers. If you wish the uncertainty I invoke with my observations on this to be removed then you know what you have to do. Otherwise the uncertainty will remain.

SC: Except the truth, Hermione, is that there actually is evidence. But that evidence points to the complete opposite conclusion to the one you’re seeking. And because that evidence strongly suggests there was nothing wrong with Mr Hill’s memory, then that evidence is to be ignored and dismissed by you - because it doesn’t support your conjecture; because it’s inconvenient to you. But again – it won’t wash with objective folks.

Hermione: You are not "objective folks."

SC: Of course I’m not because I have a dog in the debate. I couldn’t possibly have been meaning me. I have a view one way and you the other. But there are many, many objective people out there in the wider world, Hermione, who don’t (yet) have a view on this issue and who will come across this and come to their own conclusion based on the evidence presented and upon the ‘balance of probability’. And if they can’t come to a conclusion one way or the other well, that’s okay too.

Hermione: And we have yet to see this evidence.

SC: I fear that you are not following this properly. Go and have yourself a look at the dates in the inscriptions for the other chambers. Go and gave a look at all the dates on Mr Hill’s facsimile sheets. Can you show me a single mistake Mr Hill made?

SC: I know you said that. And it’s simply not a convincing defence. If that is to be the basis of your ‘defence’ then, as I’ve stated a few times now, you have to try and somehow substantiate it because, as the evidence currently stands, the precise opposite is being demonstrated in terms of Mr Hill’s fallibility of doing near identical tasks. The evidence elsewhere shows he was perfectly dependable and made no mistakes.

Hermione: It's not a defence. My position is not a response to yours.

SC: You’ve been defending Vyse probably for as long as your co-author. That’s your position. That’s what you’re defending. I’m challenging that position so for you to claim your position is not a response to mine is, well, odd. If it’s not then what the heck have we been doing these past days?

Hermione: The question of the discrepant dates is discussed in Strange Journey.

SC: I’m sure it is. And it pleases me that you at least regard this date in this chamber as a discrepancy / anomaly. No doubt you will have your explanation for it. And I have mine. It’s up to those objective minds in the wider world out there to decide who they think is more likely to be correct.

SC Hermione: Saying that Hill was "perfectly" anything scarcely needs comment.

SC: Are you suggesting Mr Hill’s inscriptions on the other chamber walls are not perfectly correct? Are you suggesting Mr Hill’s dates on his facsimile drawings are not perfectly correct?

SC

Edited November 7, 2019 by Scott Creighton

November 7, 2019

13 hours ago, Trelane said:

Present your facts. Do it now.

Quote

As always not one word in the post has been addressed.