GP Hoax - New Evidence of Vyse Forgery

[kmt_sesh]

SC: Why exactly are you veering off to discuss my “idea about pyramids and Osiris”?

My previous post was merely to point out the rank hypocrisy of you demanding that I present evidence to back up my claim about the Vyse hoax, otherwise you demand that I “leave the discussion”. How many times have you been asked to present hard, empirical evidence that the first 16 (completed) Egyptian pyramids were conceived as tombs to back up your claim but have been found sorely wanting? Are you then to leave such discussions when you fail to produce the hard, empirical evidence to support your claim? Do you not realize the utter hypocrisy of your statement?

But unlike you, however, I have already produced sufficient evidence that suggests fraud by Vyse & Co. in the GP. More evidence will be forthcoming in due course. If you are so impatient, that is your problem, not mine.

SC: And yet, my “idea about pyramids and Osiris” is better supported by actual hard, empirical evidence than your seriously deficient tomb theory.

SC: But that is what YOU do each and every time someone asks YOU for hard, empirical evidence to back up your pyramid tomb theory. In this regard, you are no different, my friend. But, unlike you, I WILL present the evidence in due course.

SC: Go back and read what I actually said. I said the material would be presented in my book and, thereafter, here on UM (and other sites). No one needs to purchase my book as I will be presenting the information here FOC in due course. What is your problem with that?

SC: I don't actually give a hee-haw what you're saying. This particular UM Forum is specifically for the discussion of “Ancient Mysteries and Alternative History”. I think the material I have already presented (and will further present) is entirely relevant to this particular board. If you are so determined to promote mainstream theories about the Ancient Egyptian culture without any hard, empirical evidence to support your claims, perhaps it is YOU that should find a more appropriate board for such discussions and leave those of us who wish to discuss alternative ideas to get on with it. Just a thought.

SC

Let's both dial it back a bit. How you regard me personally is of no import, but you should take seriously the fact that I'm a Moderator. I'm trying to keep this discussion in check, the information timely, and the tension levels down. Whatever you think of me personally, if I make a statement as a Moderator, you are obligated to abide by it if you wish to participate at UM. Please understand I am not posturing or threatening (at this point), I am merely pointing out a basic fact of membership at UM:

6a. Compliance: You agree to co-operate with the requests of our site staff should you be asked to stop doing something that they deem to be disruptive, inappropriate or in violation of the terms of service.

Rules

Let's leave it at that. My directives as a Moderator do not require comments.

But to the substance of your post, I find it odd that you're questioning my mentioning the subject of your Osiris idea when you're the one who brought up your Osiris idea. I was merely hoping to stem off the veering away of the discussion into that.

Your statement about my presenting sources is fair. I used to provide citations and references in many of posts but don't do it much anymore. The people I'm debating and for whom I provide references usually ignore academic citations anyway, so why bother? I find you to be one such person. I can cite any number of recognized historical studies of the pyramids and our understanding of them as tombs, and in one past thread I acknowledged the understanding to be theoretical in the sense of historical research, but your standard reply is to blow them off and call me (and others) "Egypt-apologists." In my way of thinking, this in no way refutes my or others' counter-arguments. To be perfectly frank I regard your pyramid idea as a classic example of pareidolia—writ large, very large. I would welcome the opportunity to resurrect the argument, if you wish to do so in a separate thread.

Much the same applies to your Vyse theory. It's novel but everything you're calling "empirical evidence" is far from it. Empirical evidence implies you've basically made your case beyond a reasonable doubt—and yet in this thread and on other forums you've enjoyed little if any agreement. As I've said before it's not evidence, it's an idea of yours. Run with it, but don't puff out your chest and proclaim your success. Well, you can, but that doesn't change reality.

For example, many times Bennu has pointed out the two dots below the horned viper. I admit to having missed this obvious case all along. You stated in an earlier post that you addressed his statement, but I have no idea where or when this happened. I've been involved in all of the Vyse-related debates. So if I've missed something, which is possible, please help out all of us and let us know where or when you addressed Bennu's challenge. No one seems to know where it is, so please don't just tell us to go looking for it.

iIt's possible I'm holding you to a higher standard, but it was my thought all along that you were up for it. You seem to be losing your cool lately, and it's not my intent that this be so. I'm a puppy compared to the actual bastions of academic peer-reviewed research. So if you ever really care to try to confront them with your books and other writing, I'm minor league compared to what you'll face.

[kmt_sesh]

Never read any of Scott's (just reading the forums tells me how bad his research is) but I should point out that when history professors get a contract for a book, they're pretty good at coming up with interesting stuff. Tyldsley's DAUGHTERS OF ISIS (for example... Egyptology and history) and any of Barbara Mertz's books (she wrote the Amelia Peabody mysteries in addition to regular Egyptology books and so forth) make darn good reading. I also like Toby Wilkerson, FWIW.

I've read Mertz's history books and had read most of her Amelia Peabody stories before I grew tired of the same plot running through each one, but they're all highly enjoyable. I was sad to learn of her passing not long ago. She got her start at the University of Chicago, where I've spent many a happy hour in the Oriental Institute.

Wilkinson is terrific. He writes on a broad range of Egyptological studies but in my opinion he's one of the best on prehistoric and Early Dynastic Egypt. He brings these topics to life.

[docyabut2]

Good grief when is every one going to get over it, the Egyptians did build those pyramids and there are no aliens or Atlantians that did it

Edited September 2, 2014 by docyabut2

[kmt_sesh]

Moderator's note:

I think this topic is starting to lose its way. Tensions are rising and most posters are now just taking pot shots at Scott. I don't want to close this thread but will have to if we can't stay on topic. I would suggest we allow Scott the chance to address Bennu's challenge about the two dots below the horned viper. That would be a good way to keep the subject matter going.

Thanks.

kmt_sesh

[Scott Creighton]

KMT: I would suggest we allow Scott the chance to address Bennu's challenge about the two dots below the horned viper. That would be a good way to keep the subject matter going.

SC: This ‘point’ has been addressed already (elsewhere). But I shall try again.

Why has Vyse in his private journal drawn the Khufu cartouche on TWO occasions with an unhatched disc (as well as placing the two dots under the snake glyph)? On TWO separate occasions he draws the two dots under the snake glyph and on BOTH occasions a disc without the hatched lines. And why does Vyse draw this cartouche THREE times in his private journal horizontally when, in reality, it appears vertically in the chamber? Why did Mr Hill ALSO draw this cartouche horizontally in his facsimile drawing of it? These are questions that have to be answered.

This tells me that Vyse and Hill originally observed this cartouche (and crew name) elsewhere (i.e. somewhere outside the pyramid) and that they originally observed it aligned horizontally, hence why both Vyse and Hill drew it that way. (Remember both Vyse and Hill draw all other markings with their correct orientations--so why has this cartouche been drawn a total of FOUR times between them with the wrong orientation)? Everything else they copied shows the correct orientations--why does this cartouche (and crew name) have the wrong orientation? This tells me the cartouche Vyse and Hill copied WAS horizontal which means it CANNOT have been the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber that they were copying since that cartouche is vertical.

Wherever Vyse/Hill found this 'master cartouche', it was found with a blank disc and with two dots under the snake glyph (which they wrongly believed to be part of the inscription). Only later, when they had observed some more examples of the Khufu cartouche does Vyse realize that the two dots were not, in fact, part of the king’s name. This is why, in his published book, they have been removed.

Having copied the master source (horizontally), Mr Hill then takes this master facsimile drawing to Campbell’s Chamber, rotates it 90 degrees in order to copy it onto one of the gabled trussing of Campbell’s Chamber, with unhatched disc and with two dots under the snake glyph.

Three weeks later (after receiving drawings from Mr Perring of the Khufu cartouche with hatched lines and no dots under the snake glyph from the Tomb of the Trades), Vyse goes there to check for himself. He observes the Khufu cartouches with the hatched discs and deliberates in his private journal later that day on 16^th June, 1837, whether the blank disc is the correct way to spell Khufu. He decides to add three lines to the disc in Campbell’s Chamber (and, obviously, to Hill’s facsimile drawing also). You can see these deliberations in his private journal.

Now, it is easier to add than to take away i.e. easier to add three lines into the plain disc than remove two painted dots. Vyse could, of course, have chipped away the limestone rock, removing the two dots under the snake glyph (assuming, of course, that he had realized by this time that they were not part of the king’s name). But that would have left very obvious traces that the cartouche had been altered. The solution? Simply add some other random spots of red ochre paint to the cartouche to make it look like they are ALL just random spots of paint.

Ask yourself the question, why would Vyse draw only the two dots under the snake glyph and not any of the other dots, some of which are more prominent, from that cartouche? Why did Vyse and Hill think that, of all the random spots of paint in that cartouche, the two under the snake glyph were the only ones relevant to the king’s name? Why would they have thought that? Why wouldn't they have thought that those two spots of paint under the snake glyph were just as random as the other random spots of paint?

If they had observed a horizontally aligned Khufu cartouche elsewhere that had ONLY these two dots under the snake glyph it is likely then that, being unfamiliar at this time with the exact spelling of the Khufu cartouche, they could have easily thought the two dots were relevant.

Only later, having now seen a number of other examples of the Khufu cartouche, do they realize these two dots are not, in fact, relevant.

And that is when they decide to ‘mask’ their mistake by adding other random spots of paint into the cartouche in Campbell’s (rather than erasing their mistake by chipping away pieces of limestone which would have more easily betrayed their deceit).

SC

Edited September 2, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[questionmark]

SC: This ‘point’ has been addressed already (elsewhere). But I shall try again.

Why has Vyse in his private journal drawn the Khufu cartouche on TWO occasions with an unhatched disc (as well as placing the two dots under the snake glyph)? On TWO separate occasions he draws the two dots under the snake glyph and on BOTH occasions a disc without the hatched lines. And why does Vyse draw this cartouche THREE times in his private journal horizontally when, in reality, it appears vertically in the chamber? Why did Mr Hill ALSO draw this cartouche horizontally in his facsimile drawing of it? These are questions that have to be answered.

This tells me that Vyse and Hill originally observed this cartouche (and crew name) elsewhere (i.e. somewhere outside the pyramid) and that they originally observed it aligned horizontally, hence why both Vyse and Hill drew it that way. (Remember both Vyse and Hill draw all other markings with their correct orientations--so why has this cartouche been drawn a total of FOUR times between them with the wrong orientation)? Everything else shows the correct orientations--why does this cartouche have the wrong orientation? This tells me the cartouche Vyse and Hill copied WAS horizontal which means it CANNOT have been the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber which is vertical.

Wherever Vyse/Hill found this 'master cartouche', it was found with a blank disc and with two dots under the snake glyph (which they wrongly believed to be part of the inscription). Only later, when they had observed some more examples of the Khufu cartouche does Vyse realize that the two dots were not, in fact, part of the king’s name. This is why, in his published book, they have been removed.

Having copied the master source (horizontally), Mr Hill then takes his facsimile drawing to Campbell’s Chamber, rotates it 90 degrees in order to copy it onto one of the gabled trussing of Campbell’s Chamber, with unhatched disc and with two dots under the snake glyph.

Three weeks later (after receiving drawings from Mr Perring of the Khufu cartouche with hatched lines and no dots under the snake glyph from the Tomb of the Trades), Vyse goes there to check for himself. He observes the Khufu cartouches with the hatched discs and deliberates in his private journal later that day on 16^th June, 1837, whether the blank disc is the correct way to spell Khufu. He decides to add three lines to the disc in Campbell’s Chamber (and, obviously, to Hill’s facsimile drawing also). You can see these deliberations in his private journal.

Now, it is easier to add than to take away i.e. easier to add three lines into the plain disc than remove two painted dots. Vyse could, of course, have chipped away the limestone rock, removing the two dots under the snake glyph (assuming, of course, that he had realized by this time that they were not part of the king’s name). But that would have left very obvious traces that the cartouche had been altered. The alternative? Simply add some other random blotches of red ochre paint to the cartouche to make it look like they are all just random spots of paint.

Ask yourself the question, why would Vyse draw only the two dots under the snake glyph and not any of the other dots, some of which are more prominent, from that cartouche? Why did Vyse and Hill think that, of all the random spots of paint in that cartouche, the two under the snake glyph were the only ones relevant to the king’s name? Why would they have thought that? Why wouldn't they have thought that those two spots of paint under the snake glyph were just as the other random spots of paint?

If they had observed a horizontally aligned Khufu cartouche elsewhere that had ONLY these two dots under the snake glyph then it is likely then that, being unfamiliar at this time with the exact spelling of the Khufu cartouche, they could have easily thought the two dots were relevant.

Only later, having now seen a number of other examples of the Khufu cartouche, do they realize these two dots are not, in fact, relevant.

And that is when they decide to ‘mask’ their mistake by adding other random spots of paint into the cartouche in Campbell’s (rather than erasing their mistake by chipping away pieces of limestone which would have more easily betrayed their deceit).

SC

And naturally you can "prove" that?

[Scott Creighton]

But to the substance of your post, I find it odd that you're questioning my mentioning the subject of your Osiris idea when you're the one who brought up your Osiris idea. I was merely hoping to stem off the veering away of the discussion into that.

SC: Show me where, in this thread where I brought up my "Osiris idea". I merely asked you for proof that the first 16 pyramids were conceived and built as tombs, for that is what you believe. That does not equate to my "Osiris idea". It equates to asking for proof that the first pyramids were conceived as tombs. Nothing more.

The reason I asked that was merely to point out to you that because I am not yet in a position to present my final piece of evidence that Vyse faked hieroglyphs in the GP (although I will do so in due course), you are asking me to leave the discussion. But when I ask people to present empirical evidence to back up their argument (i.e. to prove the first pyramids were conceived as tombs), only to find that they can't, that's okay with you--they are allowed to continue in discussions?

Do you not see that this is something of a hypocritical position? Do as we say, not as we do.

SC

Edited September 2, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[questionmark]

SC: Show me where, in this thread where I brought up my "Osiris idea". I merely asked you for proof that the first 16 pyramids were conceived and built as tombs, for that is what you believe. That does not equate to my "Osiris idea". It equates to asking for proof that the first pyramids were conceived as tombs. Nothing more.

The reason I asked that was merely to point out to you that because I am not yet in a position to present my final piece of evidence that Vyse faked hieroglyphs in the GP (although I will do so in due course), you are asking me to leave the discussion. But when I ask people to present empirical evidence to back up their argument (i.e. to prove the first pyramids were conceived as tombs), only to find that they can't, that's okay with you--they are allowed to continue in discussions?

Do you not see that this is something of a hypocritical position? Do as we say, not as we do.

SC

While they might not have been conceived as tombs, the pyramid texts that cladking likes to quote around here show that they were conceived as funerary monuments, and the Giza pyramids were placed in a necropolis that was used since the stone age is another good indicator that they did not build a "recovery vault" in a cemetery.

That Saqqara has a similar pattern, earth graves, mastabas and finally pyramids, should also give you something to think about... and yes, we have no problem dating those earth graves.

There is a mastaba or pyramid for all pharaohs starting in the 3d dynasty (Djoser) to the end of the 4th dynasty with Shepseskaf (who finally could not afford another (pyramid). Later, depending on the fortunes of the kingdom further pyramids and cave graves were used.

To prove any 'recovery' you should star out by demonstrating that there was something to recover from 16800 years ago, which seems to be lacking in your sorry effort.

[Bennu]

Oh please. Do you, Scott, seriously expect anyone to believe that what are clearly stray paints smudges in the CC cartouche were purposely painted with a brush? Why then do they look exactly like the other smudges all over the cartouche except perhaps slightly more prominent? Does this look like purposely painted dots with the same brush as the lines? I think not. And why then did he also paint all those other countless dots in and around the cartouche? If he didn't purposely paint all those other dots then how did they get on there? How could that even happen when the stone was in its current position? Those particular two dots are not even solid, as they wouold be if purposely painted with a brush. They are, in fact, a series of smaller dots, almost like pixels in a digital image, just like the ones above the cartouche, and they are nowhere near round, just like the ones above the cartouche. Anyone can clearly see that they are random smudges not even made with a brush but probably rubbed onto the stone by contact with something else with paint on it or dropped onto the stone when it was horizontal. Vyse obviously copied them to give an accurate representation of what he found in the Chamber.

Hill also drew a dot under the ram in his drawing of a Khnum-Khuf cartouche, as shown in your image of Hill's signed drawings. Did they also mistakenly think there was a dot in that cartouche? Then why is there not a dot in the same place in every Khnum-Khuf cartouche in the chambers? And also how could Vyse have thought the two dots were part of Khufu's cartouche when he also drew the Tomb of Trades cartouche on the same page without the dots and he had already seen published examples of the cartouche in books, as you yourself have stated? The only reasonable conclusion is that the cartouche is authentic and was painted when the stone was horizontal. In conclusion; if there are dots on it, you must acquit.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Bennu

[cladking]

While they might not have been conceived as tombs, the pyramid texts that cladking likes to quote around here show that they were conceived as funerary monuments, and the Giza pyramids were placed in a necropolis that was used since the stone age is another good indicator that they did not build a "recovery vault" in a cemetery.

That the Pyramid Texts are funerary in nature or that graves were built around the

pyramids hardly proves the pyramids were tombs. This goes many times over when

there's no direct evidence to support them being tombs and the Pyramid Texts actu-

ally say the pyramid wasn't his tomb and his tomb was in the sky. How people add

these facts together to arrive at "tombs" is beyond me.

There is a mastaba or pyramid for all pharaohs starting in the 3d dynasty (Djoser) to the end of the 4th dynasty with Shepseskaf (who finally could not afford another (pyramid). Later, depending on the fortunes of the kingdom further pyramids and cave graves were used.

Yes, there is something of a correspondance between kings and great pyramids. But

even were this correspondance perfect this would hardly be proof that pyramids were

tombs. Each president has a presidential library but no one is literally buried in one.

Didn't Scott Creighton say that each suspect glyph is oriented incorrrectly and no others

are? This is the kind of anecdotal evidence that I find very convincing. Proof is so very

often lacking when evidence is extremely thin so anecdotal evidence becomes the means

by which paradigm upsetting hypotheses emerge.

Edited September 2, 2014 by cladking

[questionmark]

That the Pyramid Texts are funerary in nature or that graves were built around the

pyramids hardly proves the pyramids were tombs. This goes many times over when

there's no direct evidence to support them being tombs and the Pyramid Texts actu-

ally say the pyramid wasn't his tomb and his tomb was in the sky. How people add

these facts together to arrive at "tombs" is beyond me.

Yes, there is something of a correspondance between kings and great pyramids. But

even were this correspondance perfect this would hardly be proof that pyramids were

tombs. Each president has a presidential library but no one is literally buried in one.

Didn't Scott Creighton say that each suspect glyph is oriented incorrrectly and no others

are? This is the kind of anecdotal evidence that I find very convincing. Proof is so very

often lacking when evidence is extremely thin so anecdotal evidence becomes the means

by which paradigm upsetting hypotheses emerge.

OK clad, what is the nature of the pyramid texts?

[scorpiosonic]

So the AE decided they would build a seed-storage vault right in the middle of a burial ground?!? By same token,. Libraries are places to keep books, not for burying the dead.

ck, this is one of your biggest stumbling blocks, IF you don't have the proof, you must go and find it. I'm talking HARD proof based on facts, not phantom facts and fairy tales based on overspeculation, etc. (Assuming you want others to take you seriously while attempting to prove your hypothesis.)

"Proof is so very often lacking when evidence is extremely thin so anecdotal evidence becomes the means

by which paradigm upsetting hypotheses emerge."

(Be careful what U ask for!)

Edited September 2, 2014 by scorpiosonic

[cladking]

OK clad, what is the nature of the pyramid texts?

This thread isn't about the PT nor what they seem obviously to be.

I merely agreed they were "funerary" but this doesn't mean they are "spells" or that the pyramids are tombs.

I'm merely suggesting that you can't use beliefs to support or disprove any theory.

Scott's theories are outside the paradigm beliefs so paradigm beliefs are irrelevant to it. You must argue the

facts rather than the beliefs or the paradigm derived from them. It's rather obvious that the glyphs are suppor-

tive of the paradigm but he is casting doubt not only on the glyphs but the paradigm itself. In such a case only

the facts are relevant to the argument.

This is the same problem every alternative idea faces in almost every instance; the paradigm is pervasive and

by definition is supposed to explain all the facts. Each orthodox thinker already has an explanation for most of

the facts and things that lie outside these explanations are mysteries. What we have here are endless myster-

ies and when outsiders try to explain some aspect of the reality they are met not with facts and logic, but with

orthodox thinking based on the paradigm. Of course this isn't universal but "alternative (orthodox) explanations"

for facts aren't really an argument but a restatement of the parameters. In Egyptology these restatements often

employ the term "cultural context".

I always like to talk PT so be sure to chime in when it's appropriate.

[cladking]

So the AE decided they would build a seed-storage vault right in the middle of a burial ground?!?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Scott Creighton is claiming the glyphs aren't legitimate and don't support the paradigm. So

rather than cite evidence to the contrary you are merely restating the paradigm; that it was a

burial ground therefore all structures are funerary related.

I don't think there was ever any doubt that the paradigm could reflect the reality. The problem

is that there are an inordinate number of mysteries that arise from seeing the evidence in this

light. The problem is that the evidence is so thin to support the paradigm that other possibilities

for interpretation of the evidence exist.

Why wouldn't they build a seed storage vault or an alien landing pad in the desert? Why would

it matter if they added a necropolis to it or one already existed in the area? Where are the facts

and logic?

I have no dog in this fight and I believe there was an individual named "Khufu" (or something like

it) to whom G1 was assigned. But if the argument that Vyse's glyphs are authentic or faked is

important to any theory then the facts and logic must stand on their own without support of any

axioms and postulates such as that the pyramids were tombs that could have been built by a sin-

gle means by people who never changed and believed in magic.

Scott Creighton's ideas challenge these axioms so they can't be used against him.

.

Edited September 2, 2014 by cladking

[questionmark]

This thread isn't about the PT nor what they seem obviously to be.

I merely agreed they were "funerary" but this doesn't mean they are "spells" or that the pyramids are tombs.

I'm merely suggesting that you can't use beliefs to support or disprove any theory.

Scott's theories are outside the paradigm beliefs so paradigm beliefs are irrelevant to it. You must argue the

facts rather than the beliefs or the paradigm derived from them. It's rather obvious that the glyphs are suppor-

tive of the paradigm but he is casting doubt not only on the glyphs but the paradigm itself. In such a case only

the facts are relevant to the argument.

This is the same problem every alternative idea faces in almost every instance; the paradigm is pervasive and

by definition is supposed to explain all the facts. Each orthodox thinker already has an explanation for most of

the facts and things that lie outside these explanations are mysteries. What we have here are endless myster-

ies and when outsiders try to explain some aspect of the reality they are met not with facts and logic, but with

orthodox thinking based on the paradigm. Of course this isn't universal but "alternative (orthodox) explanations"

for facts aren't really an argument but a restatement of the parameters. In Egyptology these restatements often

employ the term "cultural context".

I always like to talk PT so be sure to chime in when it's appropriate.

Hey, it was you who started with the yaddah, so put up or....

Naturally the texts are about burials, just as Tetis' shows when it seez :

Oho! Oho! Rise up, O Teti! Take your head, collect your bones,

That is not about martians or seeds.

Edited September 2, 2014 by questionmark

[cladking]

Oho! Oho! Rise up, O Teti! Take your head, collect your bones,

Well... ...I can't comment beyond observing it's wonderful to see someone else quote the builders of the pyramids.

edited to add; I can also observe that the seed crops really were the bones of ancient economies.

Edited September 2, 2014 by cladking

[questionmark]

Well... ...I can't comment beyond observing it's wonderful to see someone else quote the builders of the pyramids.

edited to add; I can also observe that the seed crops really were the bones of ancient economies.

Yes and then we have the text of the tomb of Unas that seez:

Utterance 134: O Unas, you have not gone dead, you have gone alive to sit on the throne of Osiris. Your scepter is in your hand that you may give orders to the living, the handle of your lotus-shaped scepter in your hand. Give orders to those of the Mysterious Sites (the dead)!

we know, we know.

[Bennu]

Here's hard proof that pyramids were tombs;

Parts of a mummy found inside a 4,300-year-old pyramid could be Queen Seshseshet, the mother of the first pharaoh of Egypt's 6th dynasty, archaeologists have announced. A skull, pelvis, legs, and pieces of a torso wrapped in linen lay inside a 16-foot-tall (5-meter-tall) pyramid—the third "subsidiary" tomb found next to that of the pharaoh Teti, who ruled for 22 years before he was assassinated. http://news.national...gypt-queen.html

The obvious reason for no other mummies being found in the sarcophagi in pyramids is that they were plundered. The mummies were probably taken to a safer location to be opened up and searched for jewels.Tell me this; why were all the pyramids plundered by tomb raiders if there were never anyone entombed in them with their valuables? Were they after stored seeds?

Edited September 2, 2014 by Bennu

[scorpiosonic]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Scott Creighton is claiming the glyphs aren't legitimate and don't support the paradigm. So

rather than cite evidence to the contrary you are merely restating the paradigm; that it was a

burial ground therefore all structures are funerary related.

I don't think there was ever any doubt that the paradigm could reflect the reality. The problem

is that there are an inordinate number of mysteries that arise from seeing the evidence in this

light. The problem is that the evidence is so thin to support the paradigm that other possibilities

for interpretation of the evidence exist.

Why wouldn't they build a seed storage vault or an alien landing pad in the desert? Why would

it matter if they added a necropolis to it or one already existed in the area? Where are the facts

and logic?

I have no dog in this fight and I believe there was an individual named "Khufu" (or something like

it) to whom G1 was assigned. But if the argument that Vyse's glyphs are authentic or faked is

important to any theory then the facts and logic must stand on their own without support of any

axioms and postulates such as that the pyramids were tombs that could have been built by a sin-

gle means by people who never changed and believed in magic.

Scott Creighton's ideas challenge these axioms so they can't be used against him.

.

If you're here, you have a dog in this fight...I'm not restating the paradigm, I'm stating the fact that Giza Plateau is a burial ground, a well known fact, (see the many other very similar examples scattered thru out Egypt, some in Nubia...)

SC's very thin 'evidence' is shrouded in a smokescreen, w/ a glimpse of the ghosts of truth now and then.....no one can prove/disprove it, a typical fringe tactic.

PLZ answer, The nearly unreadable Journal is an exc. example, how can SC possibly prove it states what he claims, and then who is qualified to be the final judge of what the Journal actually states? (Creating doubt is NOT considered proof.)

If you are trying to say the facts must support the claim, I agree. In this case, they do not.

Edited September 2, 2014 by scorpiosonic

[cladking]

If you're here, you have a dog in this fight...I'm not restating the paradigm, I'm stating the fact that Giza Plateau is a burial ground, a well known fact, (see the many other very similar examples scattered thru out Egypt, some in Nubia...)

You can't say that Giza was a necropolis after construction of G1 began and therefore G1

was a tomb. You can't say G1 is a tomb therefore it wasn't a seed vault. You can't say that

that the paradigm explains it in another manner because Scott Creighton does not accept

the paraigm. You must use only the facts and logic.

The same facts and logic that gave rise to the paradigm might suffice but this means facts

and logic rather than assumptions and axioms.

SC's very thin 'evidence' is shrouded in a smokescreen, w/ a glimpse of the ghosts of truth now and then.....no one can prove/disprove it, a typical fringe tactic.

It seems such tactics should make it easier for the facts to outweigh the argument.

PLZ answer, The nearly unreadable Journal is an exc. example, how can SC possibly prove it states what he claims, and then who is qualified to be the final judge of what the Journal actually states? (Creating doubt is NOT considered proof.)

Each person should be weighing the evidence himself. If I considered only his evi-

dence it seems a solid case has been made to cast a lot of doubt. But then, this is

the nature of most well thought out argument.

It would be extremely difficult for me to try to make heads or tails of the diary but this

is the sort of thing I'm good at as I get used to the writing and thinking of the author.

If you are trying to say the facts must support the claim, I agree. In this case, they do not.

Show the facts that deny his claim. The paradigm is irrelevant because he is arguing

against the validity of the paradigm.

It seems that for the main part the argument against him is that this is known to be Khufu's

tomb therefore it's only natural for his name to appear among the work crews. The problem

here is simply that none of this is writ in stone and even "khufu's" name here is being chal-

lenged much less that it was his tomb or there were ever any work crews assigned to built

the pyramid. He has even suggested that the crew names are mistranslated or misinterpreted.

I believe a great deal of the language is mistranslated but in my position I can't even point it

out. Scott Creighton can because he's focusing on only a few glyphs and the concept of mis-

translation isn't central to his theory. He's saying the glyphs are faked.

Of course he hasn't proven his case but he doesn't need to. He merely needs to have a bet-

ter case than anyone else in this instance. Even if you lose the argument it has relatively lit-

tle impact on the paradigm but, apparently, it provides a lot of support for his theory which de-

nies some or much of the paradigm.

Prove the glyph is legitimate and it destroys the argument.

This is much of the problem; orthodoxy won't do any testing to support the paradigm. We are

supposed to take it all on faith. Many people lack faith in these interpretations. We lack faith.

Edited September 2, 2014 by cladking

[scorpiosonic]

You don't have the right to tell me what I can/can't say ck, get over yourself.

I can say Giza was a necropolis before the GP was built but you won't accept this fact, or any other.

Forget the dam paradigms and concentrate on the facts.

On your last bit: first sentence, "Show the facts that deny his claim...." Then in 3rd para, "Of course he hasn't proven his case but he doesn't need to..."

Why are we not held to the SAME standards here?

SC IS accusing Vyse of forging Journal AND Carouches, (he's one of the very few who believes in this) but, the FACTS DO NOT support his claims. His paradigms are fantasy based. Pyramid dates stand until proven otherwise.

I'm patiently awaiting your transcribed version of the V Journal pg. LOL.

Edited September 2, 2014 by scorpiosonic

[cladking]

You don't have the right to tell me what I can/can't say ck, get over yourself.

You can't say one plus one equals seven. Get over yourself and what you choose to believe.

It's not an argument, it's an error.

I'm not going to espond to any of the rest of your post except to say that there were no cemeteries at Giza until after onsetr of G1 construction. There were some isoilated tombs and burials but there is no evidence of cemeteries. This is beside the point anywaty since we are talking about other things.

[scorpiosonic]

But you can redefine, 'cemeteries'.

(I was done here till your dam dog showed up in here, blankin on the floor.)

Edited September 2, 2014 by scorpiosonic

[jmccr8]

Well I'm going to chime in and add some links about grain storage in ancient Egypt.I was going to post then elsewhere but thought that they would be more relevant here at this time.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=ancient+egyptian+grain+storage&sa=X&rlz=1C1CHFX_enCA459CA459&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=7UgGVNGtNqerigLZr4GwAg&ved=0CDQQ7Ak&biw=1366&bih=643

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2008/07/01/archaeologists-find-silos-and-administration-center-early-egyptian-city

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/agriculture.htm

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1985.tb02787.x/abstract

jmccr8

[Harte]

I note that your links say nothing about magical pyramid grains that completely disappear without leaving any evidence.

I'm wondering, did the grains in the pyramids cause antigravity? Maybe that's how they did it.

Or, maybe, the grain attracted water, resulting in a large geyser that the AE's took advantage of to build some tombs.

Harte