Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Scott Creighton

Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber (Question)

245 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Kenemet
5 minutes ago, Megaro said:

I believe the Vyse lied / forgery narrative is merely a springboard to get to the juicier fringe theories, it is not intended to stand on its own.  These writers say no proof the pyramids were built to be tombs, but instead were constructed by or for the purpose of [insert blog or Youtube clickbait here].  Aliens, advanced ancient civilization, you have been lied to about the pyramids, etc.

Yeah, but if you were going to forge evidence, doing quarry marks (when you can't even read the language) is one of the stupidest ideas around, isn't it?  If you're forging evidence, you want something really solid.  Like the Pyramid Texts... if you were going to forge, forging something like that's what you need.  That gets you attention and credibility, not quarry marks (which are not even important enough to send a telegram about.)

The other problem is that these investigators (Vyse, etc) don't really understand minutae.  They copy hieroglyphs incorrectly -- as most people do when they're first trying to copy them and don't understand them.  Thus we see "any old bird" when the specific word needs an owl or a vulture or a duck or sparrow or other bird.  

Pretty darn silly idea.  And then there's the changing of the evidence they supposedly discuss (published journal vs real journal.)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
51 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

Note the section headed “Inscriptions” in the Appendix of Operations II: 145.  The inscriptions listed are those which J. R. Hill really did paint on Vyse’s instructions.  They include this text:

“Lady Arbuthnot’s chamber.  May 6, 1837.”

But this is not what we find in the chamber. 

There, we see “May 9th” (as shown in the photos posted above by mstower and others).  And on the facsimile sheets (as noted in Markus Pössel’s unpublished work, Description of the Hill Facsimiles, 1998), it is again the 9th which is specified as the date on which this chamber was opened (see The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer Pt. II: Appendix 7, quoting Pössel.)

(For a list of the dates when crew-marks in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber were discovered, see also Strange Journey Pt I: Table 3).

The day following 6th May was a Sunday (7th May) - which was when Vyse was in Cairo, visiting the Arbuthnots (Operations I: 256).

I didn't even notice that!  Wow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Megaro
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

At the bottom of this article on Robert Schoch's site are Collette Dowell's photos of the interior of the chambers and the quarry marks are really rather hard to see and hard to read correctly: 

http://www.robertschoch.net/Khufu Cheops Giza Relieving Chambers Colette Dowell.htm

 

The Colette Dowell photos are very detailed.  I also like the collection from Mr. Paulson:

http://www.fromoffthebeatenpath.com/2010/04/egypt-39-inside-greatg-pyramid.html

And part 2 from Mr. Paulson:

http://www.fromoffthebeatenpath.com/2010/04/egypt-40-great-pyramid-ii.html

Those are three excellent sources for modern, relieving chamber pictures.

Edited by Megaro
insertion of additional link
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
9 minutes ago, Megaro said:

The Colette Dowell photos are very detailed.  I also like the collection from Mr. Paulson:

http://www.fromoffthebeatenpath.com/2010/04/egypt-39-inside-greatg-pyramid.html

And part 2 from Mr. Paulson:

http://www.fromoffthebeatenpath.com/2010/04/egypt-40-great-pyramid-ii.html

Those are three excellent sources for modern, relieving chamber pictures.

Those from Paulson give a real impression of how difficult it was to find/see things there.  Modern lighting would give the wrong impression.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Posted (edited)

Well, as often happens with this type of discussion, we are veering somewhat off course. Yes, there are many other aspects to this particular topic of discussion that are equally (if not more) interesting than the one at hand, but allow me to summarise the key points of this topic. From his published account we learn that:

March 30th – Vyse enters Wellington’s Chamber and discovers painted quarry-marks (east/west walls).

April 25th – Vyse enters Nelson’s Chamber and discovers painted quarry-marks (west wall).

May 3rd – Vyse writes of the importance of discovering a cartouche, that they will help to date the various constructions around Giza and that much other information might be obtained from them. (Note: He makes this comment in regards to ruins under the sands of Giza but I think it is fair to say that his comment here would extend to any cartouches that may also be found in the pyramids).

RBxk1yG.jpg

May 6th – Vyse enters Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber and, although this chamber has somewhere around 120 painted hieratic signs and a number of the all-important cartouche Vyse was hoping to discover (see May 3rd), he makes no mention of discovering ANY quarry marks in this chamber on this day.

pAt4rgz.jpg

May 9th – Vyse finally discovers the quarry marks in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber after a "minute examination". 

May 27th – Vyse enters Campbell’s Chamber and discovers “many quarry marks” (3 walls & roof).

So we come full circle to my original question: What was so different about Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber that prevented Vyse (accompanied by Mr Raven) from discovering any of the numerous quarry marks, including the prized cartouches, during their initial visit? Keep in mind that Vyse and Raven are able to note the inferior workmanship in this chamber, that there are more limestone wall blocks and are able to measure the chamber—so lighting wasn’t a problem. Keep in mind also that they had already discovered painted marks on the walls of the two chambers below and, as such, would likely have been actively searching for similar marks (particularly an important cartouche – see May 3rd above) on the walls.

But there is only silence. And if you do not consider that highly unusual then, quite frankly, you are not paying attention.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Could the phrase “minute examination” be the key?

he had a quick shuftie on the first go, and a good “Mum look” on the second?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Could the phrase “minute examination” be the key?

he had a quick shuftie on the first go, and a good “Mum look” on the second?

Hi SWoH,

 

Very doubtful. They're crawling through this chamber on their hands and knees. They would most likely have been actively searching the walls for these marks (as they had found in the chambers below) hoping to find a prized cartouche. These first three chambers were almost identical. He found a handful of marks in the first two of these chambers on the initial inspection and these chambers had much fewer marks than Lady Arbuthnot's. And yet, LA's with its numerous and very big and bold marks (including several cartouches), the two men do not see a single mark even although they are clearly looking at the walls and, most likely, actively seeking marks on them.

The story simply doesn't add up whichever way you look at it.

SC

PS - the "minute examination" remark I think IS relevant though not in the way you might imagine. More on that later.

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ell
On 24-5-2019 at 8:49 PM, Scott Creighton said:

May 6th. ... The chamber above Nelson's (afterwards called Lady Arbuthnot's) was opened ...

This 'afterwards' implies that these notes were made at a later day (the 9th?), but were pre-dated May 6th.

And which chamber was afterwards called Lady Arbuthnot's? Nelson's, or the chamber above Nelson's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Ell said:

This 'afterwards' implies that these notes were made at a later day (the 9th?), but were pre-dated May 6th.

And which chamber was afterwards called Lady Arbuthnot's? Nelson's, or the chamber above Nelson's?

When Vyse & Raven first entered this chamber it had not yet been named. In Vyse's private notes we learn it was named 'Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber' only on 9th May (but it was likely decided upon earlier, on the 7th or 8th May). This is the chamber above Nelson's Chamber (see image below). Of course, when Vyse is writing up his manuscript for publication (after he departed Egypt in August 1837), he would know what this chamber was soon to be called and is simply inserting that knowledge into the text here. His first volume of Operations Carried Out at Gizeh' was published 3 years later, in 1840.

SC

 

Fig1.2.jpg

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

When Vyse & Raven first entered this chamber it had not yet been named. In Vyse's private notes we learn it was named 'Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber' only on 9th May (but it was likely decided upon earlier, on the 7th or 8th May). This is the chamber above Nelson's Chamber (see image below). Of course, when Vyse is writing up his manuscript for publication (after he departed Egypt in August 1837), he would know what this chamber was soon to be called and is simply inserting that knowledge into the text here. . . .

And yet Creighton fails to learn from this the general rule, that the “entry” for a date x in the published work is liable to contain information unknown until after date x.

M.

Edited by mstower
To change a tense.
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
6 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Well, as often happens with this type of discussion, we are veering somewhat off course. . . .

The course Creighton would have us follow, yes.

6 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

May 3rd – Vyse writes of the importance of discovering a cartouche, that they will help to date the various constructions around Giza and that much other information might be obtained from them. (Note: He makes this comment in regards to ruins under the sands of Giza but I think it is fair to say that his comment here would extend to any cartouches that may also be found in the pyramids).

 

RBxk1yG.jpg

Vyse was specific.  He knew that mud bricks were sometimes stamped with the name of the reigning king: he had seen examples in the course of his trip to Upper Egypt.  No part of the Giza pyramids is built with mud brick and cartouches within ˤpr names painted on stone are a different matter entirely.  They were new to experts of the day, never mind an amateur like Vyse.

Vyse’s remark concerns the “unburnt bricks” lining the shafts.  It has nothing to do with the pyramids.  No, it is not “fair” to extend his remark beyond its obvious topic.

Fact: in a podcast of February 12, 2017, Creighton said this:

“Now, when you read Colonel Vyse’s published account, he tells us consistently throughout it, that he desired to make an important discovery, he wanted to find a cartouche, specifically, that would help date the pyramids. That’s in his published account.”

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1097177,1097443

M.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
6 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Very doubtful. They're crawling through this chamber on their hands and knees. They would most likely have been actively searching the walls for these marks (as they had found in the chambers below) hoping to find a prized cartouche.

Okay...wait a sec.  This chamber is lower in height than the rest, and the floor is more broken/rough, right?  At least it looks that way from the diagram.  

If you see a space like that and it's later in the day, you don't start an examination of a difficult space then.  You wait until you're fresh and have enough support to examine the area.  If you go into a difficult area after a long day, you're likely to make mistakes.  This is something any explorer knew.

Also... what's so hyperventilating-worthy about finding cartouches in Arbuthnot's chamber?  They found them elsewhere.  Are you trying to say that the Egyptians and Khufu built the pyramid up to that level and then suddenly let... oh, I dunno... space aliens build Arbuthnot's chamber and then Egyptians resume again?  Or Vyse somehow runs in and paints cartouches all over (rather than painting, say, selections of more important things) in a language that they can't read yet?

...and happens to get them right in spite of miscopying some of the bird hieroglyphs elsewhere?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower

My current best effort in transcribing the entry for Saturday, May 6 in the (manuscript) journal:

Quote

S. 6. Sent off the people, ?chapel, breakfast, went to the works, copied the Hieroglyphics in the Temple of the 2d. Pyramid a young Frenchman came who said that he was Son of the Consul I gave him some Candles ?for the Pyramids & soon after ?when I joined Mr Perring, & Mr. Mash at the S. W. angle of the Great Pyramid, I met his Father, to whom I gave ?an ?invitation to ?my Tents; after some time I sent to them; & found ?the ?Pr—, & ?his ?Son, & the old Dragoman, they ? ? ?, a ?watch, & ? their ? ?, (they had ? ?, ? ? ?.)  Mr Raven returned from the Great Pyramid, and ?soon ?after ?we ?succeeded ?for ?I ?looke[d] ?int[o] ?the room above Nelson’s, ?we ?then paid the people off, & Mr Raven, Mr Perring, Mr Mash, & Myself ?came to Cairo, I took a Bath & dined with Mr Brettel, & ? Russian ?Officers who had been educated in England, & who spoke good English.

M.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
5 minutes ago, mstower said:

My current best effort in transcribing the entry for Saturday, May 6 in the (manuscript) journal:

M.

That's a busy day, but typical (as I understand it) when archaeological investigators on a large and popular digsite have to deal with tourists and a constant string of visitors.  So the end of the day (after getting into the chamber) was to go down and pay the 100+ people working at the site (which would tie up two hours or so.)  That means no time really to investigate.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Okay...wait a sec.  This chamber is lower in height than the rest, and the floor is more broken/rough, right?  At least it looks that way from the diagram.  

If you see a space like that and it's later in the day, you don't start an examination of a difficult space then.  You wait until you're fresh and have enough support to examine the area.  If you go into a difficult area after a long day, you're likely to make mistakes.  This is something any explorer knew.

Also... what's so hyperventilating-worthy about finding cartouches in Arbuthnot's chamber?  They found them elsewhere.  Are you trying to say that the Egyptians and Khufu built the pyramid up to that level and then suddenly let... oh, I dunno... space aliens build Arbuthnot's chamber and then Egyptians resume again?  Or Vyse somehow runs in and paints cartouches all over (rather than painting, say, selections of more important things) in a language that they can't read yet?

...and happens to get them right in spite of miscopying some of the bird hieroglyphs elsewhere?

Vyse was hardly the one doing the quarrying to break into the chambers. He is mostly wondering around the various works, directing operations and having others report back to him on progress. He does, however, want to be first into the chambers once they have been breached.

Vyse's published account tells us that he and Raven entered the chamber. They managed to perform an examination and found nothing even although they simply must have been looking at those wall blocks and especially given that they apparently discovered painted marks in the chambers below - they'd have been anticipating such and most likely actively searching for such marks. As any normal person would do. This is Vyse's chance to lay claim to an important discovery i.e. the cartouches in this chamber (rather than him missing it and someone else in his team finding it). Vyse wants to be the one making the important discoveries - that's why he's paid out all that money.

Each of the three other chambers he tells us he discovered marks on the very day he opened those chambers. The floors didn't pose any problem there. I sense some desperation creeping into your argument here. Understandable I suppose.

"Space aliens"??

Behave yourself.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
5 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Vyse's published account tells us that he and Raven entered the chamber. . . .

Other evidence says otherwise.

5 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

. . . They managed to perform an examination and found nothing . . .

Says you.  Where is the statement stating “We found nothing”?  There is none.  You have imposed this on the evidence.

5 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

. . . even although they simply must have been looking at those wall blocks . . .

Your judgement on what “must” have been so is, to put it politely, radically lacking—but thanks for this further example of your habit of substituting a modal verb for evidence.

M.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

That's a busy day, but typical (as I understand it) when archaeological investigators on a large and popular digsite have to deal with tourists and a constant string of visitors.  So the end of the day (after getting into the chamber) was to go down and pay the 100+ people working at the site (which would tie up two hours or so.)  That means no time really to investigate.

We could as ever do with at least the crucial words being clearer, but I am sure there is nothing which could plausibly be read as “I entered the chamber above Nelson’s” or “I went into the chamber above Nelson’s”.  It is certainly consistent with Vyse having looked into the chamber through a hole not yet large enough to allow entry, but whatever the action, the descriptive details we find in the published “entry” for the day are entirely absent.  There is nothing to warrant the noisy assertions of Creighton that Vyse and Raven made a detailed examination of this chamber.  What is made yet more clear is that this was the last event of the working day, followed immediately by “paying off the people”.

M.

Edited by mstower
To add a missing word and fix a typo.
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower

Creighton’s explanation for why Vyse qua forger would let this slip in his published work?

M.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
8 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Vyse was hardly the one doing the quarrying to break into the chambers. He is mostly wondering around the various works, directing operations and having others report back to him on progress. He does, however, want to be first into the chambers once they have been breached.

That's a given, I think.

Quote

Vyse's published account tells us that he and Raven entered the chamber. They managed to perform an examination and found nothing even although they simply must have been looking at those wall blocks and especially given that they apparently discovered painted marks in the chambers below - they'd have been anticipating such and most likely actively searching for such marks. As any normal person would do.

You don't know what actions they took -- and neither do I.   It's perfectly valid to say "I think he's a scoundrel and he faked the hieroglyphs" but his journal doesn't provide any proof -- and more to the point, he doesn't behave like any of the known frauds of his time.  He never became famous for his find, never lectured on it as far as I can tell, never used it to leverage a title (he already had one) or marriage or fortune.  He published three books which were modestly successful but overshadowed by other work.

No matter how you attempt to drive it, there's just no evidence that would pass muster in a court of law.   You base your case on what YOU think is reasonable -- but you frame reasonable within the idea of "he must be cheating" rather than taking a truly neutral stance.

Quote

This is Vyse's chance to lay claim to an important discovery i.e. the cartouches in this chamber (rather than him missing it and someone else in his team finding it). Vyse wants to be the one making the important discoveries - that's why he's paid out all that money.

There was controversy over the discovery of the chambers... but not of the cartouches, which suggests that the spaces were far more important to him than the writing.  And frankly it's the chambers discovery that kept his name alive (and in a very minor fashion), not the quarry marks.

Quote

"Space aliens"??

Behave yourself.

Nope!

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

That's a given, I think.

You don't know what actions they took -- and neither do I.   It's perfectly valid to say "I think he's a scoundrel and he faked the hieroglyphs" but his journal doesn't provide any proof -- and more to the point, he doesn't behave like any of the known frauds of his time.  He never became famous for his find, never lectured on it as far as I can tell, never used it to leverage a title (he already had one) or marriage or fortune.  He published three books which were modestly successful but overshadowed by other work.

No matter how you attempt to drive it, there's just no evidence that would pass muster in a court of law.   You base your case on what YOU think is reasonable -- but you frame reasonable within the idea of "he must be cheating" rather than taking a truly neutral stance.

There was controversy over the discovery of the chambers... but not of the cartouches, which suggests that the spaces were far more important to him than the writing.  And frankly it's the chambers discovery that kept his name alive (and in a very minor fashion), not the quarry marks.

Nope!

 

Kenemet/Mstower how many times has SC gone over this same argument? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

He never became famous for his find, never lectured on it as far as I can tell, never used it to leverage a title (he already had one) or marriage or fortune. 

 

Well:  to be absolutely accurate, he didn't have a title.  His ancestors did (Sir George Howard; Sir Henry Johnson; the Earl of Strafford), but he didn't.

...

Quote

No matter how you attempt to drive it, there's just no evidence that would pass muster in a court of law.   You base your case on what YOU think is reasonable -- but you frame reasonable within the idea of "he must be cheating" rather than taking a truly neutral stance.

 

But, as asked previously, why would he have been cheating?  Why would he have wanted to forge anything?  And how would he have been able to do it?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
5 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

Well:  to be absolutely accurate, he didn't have a title.  His ancestors did (Sir George Howard; Sir Henry Johnson; the Earl of Strafford), but he didn't.

...

 

But, as asked previously, why would he have been cheating?  Why would he have wanted to forge anything?  And how would he have been able to do it?

Because if he didn't then Sitchin was wrong and SC is wrong and that simply cannot be. One of the canon rules of the fringe is no idea or possible 'evidence' is ever abandoned.Even if its silly or has no real purpose. It must be defended to the death.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane

Kenemet:

Quote

And frankly it's the chambers discovery that kept his name alive (and in a very minor fashion), not the quarry marks.

Vyse received some recognition during his lifetime, and there were some reports in learned journals, etc.

Still, he was the first to open up the pyramids at Giza.  And, although his use of explosives in 1837 wouldn't have been allowed today, he wasn't the first or only one.  Giuseppe Ferlini and Antonio Stefani used such methods in the early 1830s at Meroë, on pyramids previously discovered by Cailliaud.  And, if Vyse hadn't made his discoveries in 1837, would anyone have been able to find and open up the relieving chambers subsequently, using any other methods?  (Discounting present day muon tomography, etc.) 

Besides cartouche names of Khufu themselves, the crew-marks within the relieving chambers also provided valuable evidence about AE labour organisation methods as extensively analysed and discussed by Ann Macy Roth (see e.g. 125-130.   In 1839, Lepsius had noted the characters that we know today as referring to the word "aper," but was "unable to explain" them [Lettre au Traducteur sur les Inscriptions de la Grande Pyramide; see also The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer, Pt II, Ch. 26].) 

So the opening up of the chambers caught the public imagination, yes - but the discovery of the crew-marks, even if the implications were not recognised at the time, were later perceived as a resource that shed light on an important aspect of AE life.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Posted (edited)

So here we are – 5 days and 75 posts later and still only much squawking in the hen house with little akchul sound; plenty of heat but with very little, if any, light being generated. To be honest, I expected as much.

I asked if the luminaries here could offer a plausible explanation to the scenario I outlined in the OP. Well – let’s consider some of the responses (in no particular order).

Vyse and his crew weren’t professional archaeologists and didn’t follow modern procedures. [Stop laughing at the back] Does it really require a professional archaeologist to study a limestone wall to see if there are any painted marks upon the wall and to then record any findings in their journal?

We don’t know for certain if Vyse (or Raven) even examined the walls in this chamber for any marks. [I SAID – stop laughing at the back] Vyse is an explorer. He’s paid a small fortune to go exploring. Explorers – well, they explore stuff. That means they have to look in things and at things, in short to examine things in order to make important discoveries. Vyse tells us time and time again in his published account that he wanted to make an important discovery. Well, he’s hardly going to achieve that clearly stated objective if he doesn’t examine stuff. The very idea that Vyse nor Raven would not have examined the walls of LA’s chamber during their initial examination is just plain daft. It’s for the birds. He wants to make an important discovery but decides he won’t bother studying the walls of this chamber. Okaaaaaayyy. If it helps you sleep at night.

It was too dark, the marks were too faint – they couldn’t see them very well. [I won’t warn you again – STOP laughing at the back] There were many times more marks in this chamber than the others and there is little reason to believe that the marks in LA’s chamber would have been any more (or less) difficult to observe than the marks in the two previous chambers.

Indeed, as I have said repeatedly, the experience of discovering quarry marks in the two other chambers would most surely have had Vyse and Raven actively searching the walls in LA’s chamber for similar marks. Vyse was copying hieroglyphics (including cartouches) from many different sources. He clearly understood their importance. Thus, if you think such a search of the wall blocks in LA’s chamber to find similar marks wouldn’t have crossed their minds when the two men first entered that chamber, then you’re just plain kidding yourself. You just don’t want to accept that Vyse was driven by the need to claim for himself an important discovery. And we also know that Vyse understood the importance of the royal cartouche to the study of ancient Egypt so it is not unreasonable to suggest that he would have been hoping to make such a find in these chambers (to help date the pyramid). Indeed, even on the very day LA’s chamber was finally breached, Vyse was at the temple of G2, copying hieroglyphics from the blocks there:

w2zB0ip.jpg

So sure – he wouldn’t have been interested in examining the walls of LA’s chamber for hieroglyphic marks. Righto.

The floor was uneven and made it too difficult to examine the walls. [Will you all PLEASE get back in your seats and stop rolling about the floor] I don’t think any further comment is required about this one.

In summary then – none of the intellectual collateral that has thus far come forward has offered a remotely plausible explanation as to how these two men could miss an entire chamber chalk-full of quarry marks during their initial inspection. When they were explorers clearly interested in such things. When they had previously discovered such things in two similar chambers. Nope – just wouldn’t have crossed their minds.

Aye. Whatever floats your boat. [Shrugs].

But I’m sure you’ll all be happy to know that there actually is a very plausible answer to this little conundrum. Watch this space.

“Space aliens” [Oh FFS. Class dismissed!!!!]

SC

PS - as a little parting gift to mstower. You have a good few words wrong in your transcription. Here's a couple to help you along. Where you have "Russian Officers" try "Armenian Effendi". Don't say I'm not good to you now.

 

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.