GP Hoax - New Evidence of Vyse Forgery

[Harte]

Hi Harte,

Not likely that they would finds seeds,they would purify the seed through fermentation and release the ka of the grain into a potion to be ingested for safe passage into the spirit world.Many years ago in a pub on a late friday afternoon after listening to some wack talking about sharpening razor blades with a pyramid,I had a revelation.I remember Sam the Sham and the Pharohs-Lil' Red Ridinghood was playing on the jukebox some of what this nut was talking about might be worth investigating.

I started out stacking 4 ice cubes into a glass,3 on the bottom centered and abutting and one cube centered on the bottom 3,I then pour the ka of the grain symbolically over the crystal pyramid on homage to Atlantis until submerged.After several months of intensive study I found that the more times I sanctified the original pyramid before it dissipates into the ka of the grain the better journey through the spirit world.

jmccr8

In the entire interior of the GP (which isn't much compared to the total volume) there wouldn't be a few leftover seeds in the cracks if the thing was for grain storage?

Harte

[questionmark]

In the entire interior of the GP (which isn't much compared to the total volume) there wouldn't be a few leftover seeds in the cracks if the thing was for grain storage?

Harte

Nah... they used plastic bags being such an advanced civilization....

[cladking]

In the entire interior of the GP (which isn't much compared to the total volume) there wouldn't be a few leftover seeds in the cracks if the thing was for grain storage?

Exactly.

So why has microscopic forensics never been done?

This isn't rocket science.

[questionmark]

Exactly.

So why has microscopic forensics never been done?

This isn't rocket science.

Get the money, fill out the form Hans has given you a few threads back and hire some paleobotanists and check it yourself.

But my suspicion is that you are not really interested in finding anything that can hurt your brain excretion.

[cindybee53]

Thank you AARVARK - DK! My sentiments exactly! I read it and my only thought was, "So? And?"

[+DieChecker]

In the entire interior of the GP (which isn't much compared to the total volume) there wouldn't be a few leftover seeds in the cracks if the thing was for grain storage?

Harte

I wonder if the AE felt foolish when finally some wanderer from another culture came by and showed them how to build a granary in a couple weeks instead of 30 years.

[jmccr8]

Hi Scorpiosonic,

Yes it was a daunting task.Fortunately I had the presence of mind to hire the raven haired beauty in the short red dress that was plugging quarters into the jukebox as a research assistant.Without her devoted and unquestioning faith in the project it would have been near impossible to stack ice cubes and keep notes.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

Hi Harte,

They would have used it for grain storage if the Royal Architect had built it right side up so that the grain was easier to retrieve,that is why he was bricked up and sealed in the G1,which is why all the confusion over the tomb/silo argument exists.

jmccr8

[cormac mac airt]

I wonder if the AE felt foolish when finally some wanderer from another culture came by and showed them how to build a granary in a couple weeks instead of 30 years.

Doubtful, since silos predated the unification of Egypt I'd imagine they felt like complete fools from beginning to end.

cormac

[scorpiosonic]

SNIP

The question isn't how the paradigm explains pyramids and hieroglyphs. The question is what did

the pyramids and glyphs mean and in this case does it even matter what this specific glyph means.

This specific glyph means what it means regardless of what SC says. The question is will ANYONE accept the smokescreen SC has presented.

Hi Scorpiosonic,

Yes it was a daunting task.Fortunately I had the presence of mind to hire the raven haired beauty in the short red dress that was plugging quarters into the jukebox as a research assistant.Without her devoted and unquestioning faith in the project it would have been near impossible to stack ice cubes and keep notes.

jmccr8

I was expecting, "AA" for answer. (And on the big 'eyes' she had.)

[kmt_sesh]

I've stepped away for a couple of days to let my eyes rest (retinopathy can be a b****) but am glad to see things have calmed down. We're more on track again, although I'm writing this particular post to encourage the continuation of it while discouraging veering off topic in other ways.

Remember, this thread is about Scott's contention that the graffiti (or at least the whole cartouche in Campbell's Chamber) is a fraud. It is not about the Pyramid Texts, it is not about the purpose of the pyramid, it is only tangentially about the ancient workmen (in so far as the painting of the graffiti is concerned). That said, let's end the latest round of veering off topic. This, too, could result in the closing of the thread.

And with that in mind, Scott is right about my over-stressing of his argument that the first pyramids were built to symbolize Osiris. I was hoping Scott might wish to resurrect his old thread, but perhaps I can help by posting a link to it:

The Birth of Osiris?

This was a short-lived but lively debate. Several of us took part. I suggest all other matters not germane to the current topic be taken up in other, existing threads that would be more relevant.

Thanks.

[kmt_sesh]

Now, back to the topic. I thank Scott for taking the time to explain his approach to the pair of dots below the horned viper in the Khufu cartouche. (Although he did this a couple of days ago, before I dialed back my posting activity; I regret not being able to reply sooner.)

Scott's contention is that Vyse and Hill were working from a "master source" located somewhere outside the Great Pyramid, and that their source contained a cartouche with a pair of dots under the horned viper. Only after the fact, and having viewed other examples of Khufu's cartouche, did they realize their mistake. By then it was too late to correct.

I've asked Scott before where this master source was, and why no evidence of it has ever been found, and he's poisited that Vyse and/or Hill destroyed it so their fraud could not be tracked down. This is a logical way in Scott's theory to explain the absence of the source. It also answers why a pair of men who could not have read all of the graffiti might have been savvy enough to copy the accompanying name of the work gang, too.

I am caused to wonder, however, where the source exactly was. Workmen's graffiti is not typically in a visible location, but a lot of it is known, anyway. This is because (for one reason) Muslim occupiers from the seventh century CE on had the tendency to strip casing stones from pyramids and other monuments to make lime and to acquire building material for their own construction projects, leaving a great deal of interior stones exposed. It is on interior stones or in concealed chambers where workmen's graffiti tends to be found in modern times. In other words, the master source in Scott's scenario would've been more or less publicly visible for centuries, and yet no one else recorded it. And there were Europeans in the early nineteenth century running around and recording every inscription or bit of writing they could find (Google the name Karl Richard Lepsius for one good example).

So this is implausible to me: to argue that one or two men were the only ones in over a thousand years to find such graffiti—no less subsequently publicly destroying it without anyone else noticing. Also problematic is to argue that Vyse and Hill saw only this missing graffiti from the master source as a clue to the spelling of Khufu's name prior to Vyse's blasting his way into the relieving chambers. That area of Giza began as a Dynasty 4 burial ground because of Khufu, and it contains large numbers of contemporary tombs to the east and west. Khufu's name is all over the place. Granted, some of these neighboring mastaba tombs and other elite burials have been excavated and studied only in relatively recent times (the last century or so). But it seems highly implausible that in his many activities at Giza, Vyse saw nary an ancient recording of Khufu's name before finding the mysterious master source.

And even if the two dots were mistakenly painted on by Vyse or Hill, it would've required little effort to sand it off (especially if the paint is only several days old). In a myriad of ancient monuments we can see where the scribes did just that.

As for the vertical nature of the cartouche inside Campbell's Chamber, the fact it was drawn and printed by Vyse and Hill horizontally cannot by itself be seen as condemning evidence. These were the earliest days of ancient Egyptian epigraphy, so while a modern epigrapher would not make such a mistake in a modern publication, we can't hold men in the early nineteenth century to the same standards. The above-mentioned Lepsius was the foremost epigrapher of this time, but Vyse and Hill were mere amateurs. Yet they did a fine job, I'd say. All they did was correctly illustrate the cartouche, but in a different direction. I for one do not see this as evidence for fraud.

I'll post again an image I color-coded in a much earlier post. What I want to draw the reader's attention to are the colored circles inside the cartouche. Disregard the two circles outisde the back (left) edge, which pertain to something else I had brought up:

I had never paid much attention to the drops of paint scattered throughout the interior of the cartouche. It's Bennu who's argued the significance of the two below the horned viper, but all of them tell me something. Remember that this cartouche is vertical in the chamber, so that in situ the front (right) part of the cartouche is facing downward. To my eye all of the larger paint drips inside the cartouche fall below areas of heavier paint application, which I think is quite natural to propose. This includes the two below the viper. Thus, to my eye this reinforces the conventional understanding that the cartouche was originally painted in a horizontal fashion prior to positioning inside the chamber.

Can I promise you that my explanation is absolutely correct? No, of course I can't. Never having studied the graffiti in person, I can't present this as empirical evidence. But it does demonstrate that there are several plausible ways to approach this situation. In total, as I see it, the orthodox view still wins out.

I also have to stress that Scott's approach to the cartouche in question does not address all of the other graffiti scattered throughout the relieving chambers. I think it's a mighty stretch to propose that Vyse and Hill faked alf of it. Thus, I see no reason to argue that the Campbell cartouche is a fake while all of the other graffiti is authentic. What would be the point of that? It certainly doesn't call the whole into question, and I don't think anyone—Scott included—has presented a strong enough case to regard any of the graffiti as fake.

[scorpiosonic]

Great summary.

Just wanted to add, he did hire Mr. Andrews, but I've yet to find individually specified plate credits in Vol. 1. Also, the drawing in V's Book shows more of the hidden cartouche than any other, or pic I've seen.

(Got distracted by the text, see av sig, and @ one point Vyse had contemplated figuring the costs, etc. of completely demo/removing the GP! Aaahh, London, the bastion of the guts breed of the GP.)

(IF I was truly evil I ask, "What about those 3 other paint dots 'to right' of the infamous circle w/ hashmarks, surely they must mean something!?!...." but I'm not.)

Edited September 4, 2014 by scorpiosonic

[Bennu]

Scott's attempt at explaining the copying of the dots falls far short of plausible. The journal page with which Scott is so obsessed clearly shows the Tomb of Trades cartouche with no dots, so it is illogical that Vyse would have thought the cartouche should have the dots. Also, as Scott has pointed out, the Khufu cartouche had been published in no less than three books which would have been readily available to Vyse and none of them showed dots under the viper. Scott simply has no plausible explanation and that's really all there is to it. Are we to accept that Vyse ignored the Tomb of Trades cartouche and all three of the published versions in favour of what would have had to have a been a single example with the dots which nobody has ever reported, which Scott can only explain by suggesting that it had somehow been mysteriously eradicated from the face of the earth? It is quite obvious that the dots in the chamber cartouche are just two of many on it and that for some strange reason Vyse and Hill chose only to copy the two under the viper.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Bennu

[Kenemet]

I'm going to ask the obvious question, here -- which of those dots are actually red paint and which are imperfections or shadows on the limestone?

That rock isn't a single color -- it's many colors. If those are imperfections in the rock (inclusions), then it explains perfectly why he drew the two dots in the first place (seeing them under bad light) and didn't draw them in the book (because they went back and reexamined the inscription and found that those were inclusions and not paint.)

Frankly, analyzing things from photos is a pretty bad choice. Colors are never entirely true, and slight shifts in perspective can really change how things look.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Kenemet

[Scott Creighton]

I've asked Scott before where this master source was, and why no evidence of it has ever been found, and he's poisited that Vyse and/or Hill destroyed it so their fraud could not be tracked down. This is a logical way in Scott's theory to explain the absence of the source. It also answers why a pair of men who could not have read all of the graffiti might have been savvy enough to copy the accompanying name of the work gang, too.

I am caused to wonder, however, where the source exactly was.

SC: For obvious reason, we will likely never know.

KMT: Workmen's graffiti is not typically in a visible location, but a lot of it is known, anyway. This is because (for one reason) Muslim occupiers from the seventh century CE on had the tendency to strip casing stones from pyramids and other monuments to make lime and to acquire building material for their own construction projects, leaving a great deal of interior stones exposed. It is on interior stones or in concealed chambers where workmen's graffiti tends to be found in modern times. In other words, the master source in Scott's scenario would've been more or less publicly visible for centuries, and yet no one else recorded it. And there were Europeans in the early nineteenth century running around and recording every inscription or bit of writing they could find (Google the name Karl Richard Lepsius for one good example).

SC: Indeed there were others. Lepsius came after Vyse. Petrie also came after. Belzoni and Caviglia came before but seemed more interested in artefacts (treasure) than recording unofficial hieroglyphs.

KMT: So this is implausible to me: to argue that one or two men were the only ones in over a thousand years to find such graffiti—no less subsequently publicly destroying it without anyone else noticing.

SC: I disagree. Cartouches and phyle names are still being discovered even today (see below for example). Your argument is basically asking why Belzoni, Vyse, Caviglia, Lesius, Petrie etc, did not find these glyphs:

Just because others didn’t find a set of glyphs doesn’t mean Vyse couldn’t have found them. That’s a nonsense argument.

KMT: Also problematic is to argue that Vyse and Hill saw only this missing graffiti from the master source as a clue to the spelling of Khufu's name prior to Vyse's blasting his way into the relieving chambers.

SC: That is not what I am saying. I have said to you before, Vyse KNEW the Khufu cartouche (or, at least, thought he knew it). He confirms as much in his journal:

”Cartouches to the W. [west] of first pyramid are different than Suphis [Khufu]” – Vyse, Private Journal.

SC: Vyse would HAVE to know the Khufu cartouche in order to recognize its variations (e.g. blank disc versus hatched disc). He KNEW the Khufu cartouche when he was in Egypt in 1837. How he knew it we do not know but he did. Curious though, he makes no mention of the fact that he already knew the Khufu cartouche in his published book.

So, imagine Vyse found a whole bundle of glyphs and doesn’t recognize anything. The glyphs are all meaningless to him. But suddenly, he recognizes one of the cartouches—it’s a cartouche of Khufu (with blank disc). Obviously everything else (that he doesn’t recognise/understand) is clearly related to the one thing he CAN recognize—the Khufu cartouche. Vyse can then safely copy everything he has found into the various chambers safe in the knowledge that whatever it says, it is related to Khufu because that is the ‘context’ in which he found it.

KMT: And even if the two dots were mistakenly painted on by Vyse or Hill, it would've required little effort to sand it off (especially if the paint is only several days old). In a myriad of ancient monuments we can see where the scribes did just that.

SC: Vyse and Hill would not have known what the AEs did. Certainly they could have chipped the two dots away but probably thought it better to simply ‘mask’ the mistake by adding in other dots as this would better give the illusion of authenticity. But I notice you failed to respond to the question I posed you concerning these random spots of paint. The image below highlights these random spots of paint

SC: Notice there are many spots of paint in just this one section of the cartouche. Why would Vyse think these were not just random spots of paint? This is to say, why would Vyse have thought the two under the snake glyph (circled red in right-hand image) were significant but that the others were not? Why does he single out these two as relevant to the cartouche? Why doesn’t he think these two paint drops are just as random as the others?

KMT: As for the vertical nature of the cartouche inside Campbell's Chamber, the fact it was drawn and printed by Vyse and Hill horizontally cannot by itself be seen as condemning evidence. These were the earliest days of ancient Egyptian epigraphy, so while a modern epigrapher would not make such a mistake in a modern publication, we can't hold men in the early nineteenth century to the same standards.

SC: You seem to be implying that Vyse couldn’t make a copy of something that was in front of him. On this page of Vyse’s journal he draws THREE cartouches, two from Tomb of the Trades and one from Campbell’s Chamber. (See image below)

SC: Why does Vyse correctly present the orientation of the two cartouches from the Tomb of the Trades but then rotate the Khufu cartouche to a different orientation? Why would Hill do the exact same thing? Every other glyph dawing in Vyse’s private journal has the glyphs with their correct orientation, sometimes even presented in his private journal upside-down. Of the 28 drawings Mr Hill made, 22 have the correct orientation, 2 (the Khufu cartouche and crew name) have the wrong orientation and 4 I have not yet been able to cross-check.

KMT:…Vyse and Hill were mere amateurs. Yet they did a fine job, I'd say. All they did was correctly illustrate the cartouche, but in a different direction. I for one do not see this as evidence for fraud.

SC: Vyse did not correctly represent the cartouche in his diary. On TWO occasions he drew it with an unhatched disc. That’s not what we see in the chamber today, so why did he, initially, draw it like that? He draws all other glyphs (as does Mr Hill) with the correct orientations except this cartouche (and crew name). Of ALL the drawings these two men made, why would these be the only two that they BOTH get wrong and yet BOTH get wrong in the same way?

This may not be definitive proof of fraud but it most surely stinks to the high heavens.

KMT: I'll post again an image I color-coded in a much earlier post. What I want to draw the reader's attention to are the colored circles inside the cartouche. Disregard the two circles outisde the back (left) edge, which pertain to something else I had brought up:

I had never paid much attention to the drops of paint scattered throughout the interior of the cartouche. It's Bennu who's argued the significance of the two below the horned viper, but all of them tell me something. Remember that this cartouche is vertical in the chamber, so that in situ the front (right) part of the cartouche is facing downward. To my eye all of the larger paint drips inside the cartouche fall below areas of heavier paint application, which I think is quite natural to propose. This includes the two below the viper. Thus, to my eye this reinforces the conventional understanding that the cartouche was originally painted in a horizontal fashion prior to positioning inside the chamber.

Can I promise you that my explanation is absolutely correct? No, of course I can't. Never having studied the graffiti in person, I can't present this as empirical evidence. But it does demonstrate that there are several plausible ways to approach this situation. In total, as I see it, the orthodox view still wins out.

SC: Have a look at my image above and observe all the dots of paint outside the cartouche (top rim). Did these drops fall upwards?

KMT: I also have to stress that Scott's approach to the cartouche in question does not address all of the other graffiti scattered throughout the relieving chambers.

SC: The point has been addressed (see above). This is not to say that some markings were not original. I see little reason to doubt the family history of Walter M. Allen who tells us that his great-grandfather, Humphries Brewer, worked with Vyse at the pyramids in 1837.

Feint marks were repainted; some were new.” – Humphries Brewer

SC: What we have to do now is allow science to analyse the paint to see if there is any way that we might use to determine which glyphs are genuine and which have been faked.

SC

Edited September 4, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[questionmark]

None have been faked, that much is almost certain. Now, where again did Vyse copy that cartouche with the 3 dots from?

Edited September 4, 2014 by questionmark

[cladking]

That certainly doesn't look like any sort of normal dispersal pattern for spilled

or slopped paint. Vyse would have been aware of the serpent with two dots below

it though so copying it this way wouldn't be surprising.

I might understand the argument better if you laid out each of the major differences

in the suspect glyphs relative those that are apparently legitimate.

Edited September 4, 2014 by cladking

[questionmark]

Now, back to the topic. I thank Scott for taking the time to explain his approach to the pair of dots below the horned viper in the Khufu cartouche. (Although he did this a couple of days ago, before I dialed back my posting activity; I regret not being able to reply sooner.)

The question in this case is: what did a Egyptian paint brush look like in the 4th dynasty and how likely was it to drip.

Edit: In any case, this is how paint drips on an inclined plane:

Edited September 4, 2014 by questionmark

[Bennu]

There would not have been any other examples of a Khufu cartouche with two dots because no Egyptian would have made one. Vyse would have seen several examples of the cartouche and there is zero chance that more than one would have had random paint spots at that very spot, so why would he assume that to be the legitimate form and not any of the others? Your contention is ludicrous. And then you actually expect us to believe that he later went back in and put a bunch more spots on there to cover up the mistake. We know for sure that he saw the Tomb of Trades one because he drew it on the journal page. That's one example with no dots. Then we know that he must have seen the ones in at least three books that were available to him at the time, with no dots, yet you seriously expect us to accept that he thought a Khufu cartouche was supposed to have two dots under the serpent? You want us to believe that he would have based his great forgery on a single example, that happened to have two paint spots? That woud a little risky wouldn't it when there were at least three books out at the time with no dots? Are we to believe that he would not have bothered to check the published versions?

And why did he draw the cartouche horizontally if he himself had painted it vertically? Wouldn't that undermine his little forgery scheme? So why are you stuck on that point? What do you think it is supposed to prove that he drew it horizontally in the journal?

Now ignore this post because you know that my posts are beyond your capability to respond to.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Bennu

[scorpiosonic]

SC: "You seem to be implying that Vyse couldn’t make a copy of something that was in front of him. On this page of Vyse’s journal he draws THREE cartouches, two from Tomb of the Trades and one from Campbell’s Chamber."

There are FOUR cartouches on that pg, (said like Capt. Picard w/ 'lights').

It's obvious to most of us Vyse did make corrections to the symbols on this pg over time, and this pg's corrections support the idea Vyse was going thru the process of learning the symbols, and attempting to get it all straight in journal. (This is just one reason why this material should be considered a rough draft and nothing more.)

I still like my 'paint bowl' idea, and the 4 dots in upper L. of latest pic could be fingerprints, (the pinkie mark is just off this pic.)

So true K, some pics are available that show very few dots.

[Kenemet]

That certainly doesn't look like any sort of normal dispersal pattern for spilled

or slopped paint. Vyse would have been aware of the serpent with two dots below

it though so copying it this way wouldn't be surprising.

I might understand the argument better if you laid out each of the major differences

in the suspect glyphs relative those that are apparently legitimate.

That certainly doesn't look like any sort of normal dispersal pattern for spilled

or slopped paint. Vyse would have been aware of the serpent with two dots below

it though so copying it this way wouldn't be surprising.

In fact, this supports my idea that the "dots" are actually inclusions in the limestone and the color is simply a result of overprocessing images. In this view here, they do look quite a bit like holes/defects in the limestone: http://io9.com/german-conspiracy-nuts-vandalize-part-of-khufu-pyramid-1475089395

[scorpiosonic]

Could overprocessing be like, 'enhancement'?

I perused alot of pics also, began thinking each fringer shopped his/her own pic his/her pic to taste.

Difficult to check every one for modifications, etc. A drawback to the digital system, it's too easily modified.

[Kenemet]

Yes -- if you hit the contrast (for example) the limestone whitens up but spots on the limestone get darker (whites get whiter, darks get darker.) If you color correct to bring out the red, it will also make the dark spots redder.

And then there's the matter of the lighting which will also impact the resulting photo.

[cladking]

In fact, this supports my idea that the "dots" are actually inclusions in the limestone and the color is simply a result of overprocessing images. In this view here, they do look quite a bit like holes/defects in the limestone: http://io9.com/germa...amid-1475089395

Quite possibly. They could also have some shadow effect and there's some tendency

for paint to collect and survive better in depressions.

It's a shame that Egyptologiosts won't do the science and instead fall back on the same

old BS:

Accredited archaeologists have dismissed their claims as conspiratorial nonsense, noting the mountain of evidence clearly demonstrating when the pyramids were built and by whom— like papyri diaries of engineers working on the pyramids, records of trading expeditions to get the construction materials, and the excavation of a massive nearby worker's camp where the builders resided.

Here they even use the term "mountain of evidence" to describe a situatiobn where the

word "ramp" isn't even attested. The author regurgitates the same old nonsense that ev-

erything is known so testing and science are irrelevant. This is what everyone has to put

up with; semantics and words instead of facts and data.

I do not support anyone doing his own destructive testing. Just because Egyptology won't

do its job doesn't mean anyone has the right to do it for them. Just because the authorities

are damaging evcidence doesn't give anyone the right to take matters into their own hands.

There are laws that apply and all such activity breaks them.

Perhaps the author is also unaware that the workers were kicked out of the builders village

and exiled to go live on the ramps.

What a strange world that exists today.