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

Sir Wearer of Hats
37 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

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 help you sleep at night.. 

  Hide contents

 

 

That is something of a disengenous argument on the grounds of the fact “an important discovery” for someone of Vyse’s time is different to that of ours - his was the era of dynamite archaeology after all. He’d have have a look for things that would make money for his patrons on day one, and then go back and look for other things on later days.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ell

It is much ado about nothing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

That is something of a disengenous argument on the grounds of the fact “an important discovery” for someone of Vyse’s time is different to that of ours - his was the era of dynamite archaeology after all. He’d have have a look for things that would make money for his patrons on day one, and then go back and look for other things on later days.

As far as we know, Vyse had no patrons. He was permitted to keep some of his finds and send them to the British Museum. And it's clear he didn't consider the chambers themselves as an important discovery in their own right since after opening them and finding them "empty" he tells us he still hoped to make an important discovery i.e. the real burial of Khufu (and attendant treasure). Failing that then the next best thing is to 'discover' the King's name.

Oh and he apparently found the quarry marks in all the other chambers on the very day each chamber was breached.  So why not also this one? What was so different about LA's chamber that had MORE quarry marks than the other two combined that prevented the two men from noticing any marks (even when they most assuredly would have been actively searching for such)?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

It is much ado about nothing.

I can understand why you might think that. However, the painted quarry marks Vyse allegedly discovered in these chambers (including the cartouches of Khufu) represent a corner-stone of evidence Egyptology presents to assert the 4th dynasty Khufu provenance for this structure. If that evidence is found to be flawed then it removes a huge piece of the evidence they rely upon.

Which kinda makes it a big deal.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

... the painted quarry marks Vyse allegedly discovered in these chambers (including the cartouches of Khufu) represent a corner-stone of evidence Egyptology presents to assert the 4th dynasty Khufu provenance for this structure. If that evidence is found to be flawed then it removes a huge piece of the evidence they rely upon ...

 

There's plenty of other evidence that the GP was constructed for Khufu.

The tombs of nobles and courtiers buried round about; the accounts in the journal of Merer, and in Herodotus; the cartouche names in the boat pit; the names of aperu visible on the outside of the GP until after WWII (as reported by Goyon and Grinsell); etc. etc.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
46 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

There's plenty of other evidence that the GP was constructed for Khufu.

The tombs of nobles and courtiers buried round about; the accounts in the journal of Merer, and in Herodotus; the cartouche names in the boat pit; the names of aperu visible on the outside of the GP until after WWII (as reported by Goyon and Grinsell); etc. etc.

 

Yes Hermione. But everything else you refer to (above) is external to the GP. Unlike the quarry marks, none of it was found within a sealed chamber inside the GP thereby placing its provenance beyond dispute (from an orthodox pov, naturally).

That's the difference.

SC

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

There's plenty of other evidence that the GP was constructed for Khufu.

The tombs of nobles and courtiers buried round about; the accounts in the journal of Merer, and in Herodotus; the cartouche names in the boat pit; the names of aperu visible on the outside of the GP until after WWII (as reported by Goyon and Grinsell); etc. etc.

 

...and if you remove the three names from the inner part of the tomb - it still remains identified as Khufu's pyramid. This is kinda of a modern version of 'how many angels can dance on the head of pin'. It does nothing to support SC's belief that the pyramids were built by the 'invisible civilization' 15,000 or whatever number of years ago. So not right and if right  it is of no importance. Of course it all comes down to if you want to believe SC's stories - which are just like Cladking's stories of geysers, opinions based on biased belief.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

It is much ado about nothing.

Very much so and well said but unfortunately for us and SC its all he's got and he isn't going to give it up and therefor expect to keep seeing these same arguments repeated ad nausea for the length of his life. He won't give up he'll just keep repeating the same stuff forever.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

So here we are – 5 days and 75 posts later and still only much squawking in the hen house . . .

Wasn’t there something from someone at some point about commenting merely to throw abuse?

M.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Yes Hermione. But everything else you refer to (above) is external to the GP. Unlike the quarry marks, none of it was found within a sealed chamber inside the GP thereby placing its provenance beyond dispute (from an orthodox pov, naturally).

That's the difference.

SC

Yeah, sure, Creighton.  All of this stuff was forged by Vyse.  The entire Giza complex was forged by Vyse.

:lol::rofl::o:rolleyes:;):P

M.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
22 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Very much so and well said but unfortunately for us and SC its all he's got and he isn't going to give it up and therefor expect to keep seeing these same arguments repeated ad nausea for the length of his life. He won't give up he'll just keep repeating the same stuff forever.

Damn right I'll keep pursuing the truth. I'll keep pushing to get it until such time as any one of the luminaries here can offer up a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing these quarry marks in this chamber during their initial inspection. That's all you have to do - put up a plausible explanation and this will go away.

Can't say fairer than that.

So - let's have it. Whatcha got?

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
20 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Damn right I'll keep pursuing the truth. I'll keep pushing to get it until such time as any one of the luminaries here can offer up a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing these quarry marks in this chamber during their initial inspection. That's all you have to do - put up a plausible explanation and this will go away.

Can't say fairer than that.

So - let's have it. Whatcha got?

SC

You claim you want "a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing these quarry marks in this chamber during their initial inspection"

You have failed completely to show that they did not observe the quarry marks. All I see is wishful thinking on our part and innuendo and anything but "pursuing the truth"

"That's all you have to do - put up" a plausible issue and follow up on it.  This ongoing prattle based on virtually nothing but the weakest of inferences you pretend is worth listening to.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

... a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing these quarry marks in this chamber during their initial inspection. That's all you have to do - put up a plausible explanation and this will go away.

Can't say fairer than that.

So - let's have it. Whatcha got?

SC

Vyse had not been back to Cairo since 17th April.  He had been at Giza for nearly three weeks without a break, worried about the impending inundation, exasperated by the fact that the harvest made it more difficult for him to get workers, and working in "intense heat" with gnats and sand-flies (I: 259).

As pointed out by Kenemet and others, he had just spent another gruelling day at Giza, and, before he could finish up, had to oversee payment of the workers, which would probably have taken a couple of hours or so.

In this era, it would probably have taken about three hours to get back to Cairo (Strange Journey, I, Ch. 19: n. 653; citing Norden 118).

So it's hardly surprising that any examination of Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber would have been of the most cursory sort.

And when Vyse finally got back to Hill's Hotel, the first thing he did - not surprisingly - was to have a bath.

Edited by Windowpane
insert a clearer description
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

So it's hardly surprising that any examination of Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber would have been of the most cursory sort.

How do you know that it was only "the most cursory" examination? There was time enough to measure the chamber and examine the workmanship there. Crawling on hands and knees from one end of this 36 foot long chamber to the other with their measuring rods and notebooks - that's got to take at least 15 minutes. Being primed, even a couple of minutes in that chamber would be been sufficient to observe those marks. And there were TWO men, two EXPLORERS. What - they BOTH never once looked at a single wall block? They BOTH missed every single one of those 120 or so quarry marks when their experience from the chambers below would have primed them to anticipate finding such?

C'mon Hermione - stop kidding yourself.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


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

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.

You just couldn’t resist it, could you, Creighton?

So, after much goading, Creighton finally admits that there is, distinct from the published work, a manuscript journal whose content is relevant to this question and needs transcribing, at least in part.  Success!

“You have a good few words wrong in your transcription.”

A little dogmatic, don’t you think?  Coming from someone who’s fobbed us off with the published version and has not until now offered any transcription of the relevant entry at all?

“Armenian Effendi” looks good to me (underlining what it has in common with “Russian Officers”.) .  Don’t say I deny things just because you say them.

Now do what you should have done in the first place and show us the rest of of it.

My current provisional version:

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, & ? Armenian Effendi who had been educated in England, & who spoke good English.

Thanks (for once) for the input.  Now tell us about the other “good few words” you say I’ve got wrong.

As for your “parting gift”, much I should care about parting shots from someone hiding under the bed.

M.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

How do you know that it was only "the most cursory glance"? . . .

How do you know it was anything more?  Were you there?

Still waiting for Creighton to stop dodging serious discussion of the relevant evidence.  I am not holding my breath.

M.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Damn right I'll keep pursuing the truth. . . .

I’ve seen no sign of your pursuing the truth.  When did this start?

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

. . . I'll keep pushing to get it until such time as any one of the luminaries here can offer up a plausible explanation . . .

Translation: Creighton declares his intention to persist in his ill-mannered hectoring.

M.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Damn right I'll keep pursuing the truth. I'll keep pushing to get it until such time as any one of the luminaries here can offer up a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing these quarry marks in this chamber during their initial inspection. That's all you have to do - put up a plausible explanation and this will go away.

Can't say fairer than that.

So - let's have it. Whatcha got?

SC

The truth as you see it and others don't. So how many times do you feel you need to go over the same material? Do you know what the term 'boring' means?

No one has to make you decide you are wrong you have to convince others that you are right - and in that you have failed. How many times do you feel you need to repeat this?

I would suggest you take a look at Cladking's fate and his use of relentless repetition. Did it work?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
20 minutes ago, mstower said:

I’ve seen no sign of your pursuing the truth.  When did this start?

Translation: Creighton declares his intention to persist in his ill-mannered hectoring.

M.

Yep you would think he'd realize his 'preaching' will end with his being ostracized and ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
37 minutes ago, mstower said:

How do you know it was anything more?  Were you there?

Still waiting for Creighton to stop dodging serious discussion of the relevant evidence.  I am not holding my breath.

M.

Of course not he is here to pretend he has a serious position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
42 minutes ago, mstower said:

As for your “parting gift”, much I should care about parting shots from someone hiding under the bed.

M.

Hey I take that as a hopeful sign he is going away and it'll be a few months or longer before he comes back and repeats all the same stuff again.....with the same failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
8 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

The truth as you see it and others don't. So how many times do you feel you need to go over the same material? Do you know what the term 'boring' means?

No one has to make you decide you are wrong you have to convince others that you are right - and in that you have failed. How many times do you feel you need to repeat this?

I would suggest you take a look at Cladking's fate and his use of relentless repetition. Did it work?

 

Deflection.

Offer up a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing the quarry marks in LA's chamber during their initial inspection. That's all you have to do - put up a plausible explanation and this will go away.

Let's have it. Whatcha got?

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 hour ago, mstower said:

Yeah, sure, Creighton.  All of this stuff was forged by Vyse.  The entire Giza complex was forged by Vyse.

:lol::rofl::o:rolleyes:;):P

M.

One question besides the Pharaoh's name is he also now claiming that all the other marks in the chamber were made by Vyse or does he accept they were put there by the AE thereby falsifying his belief in the pyramid being made by the 'invisible civilization'?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

everything else you refer to (above) is external to the GP. Unlike the quarry marks, none of it was found within a sealed chamber inside the GP thereby placing its provenance beyond dispute (from an orthodox pov, naturally).

The crew-marks in the boat pit were found only after the removal of a covering-stone weighing about 14 tons (Strange Journey II: Ch. 24, n. 34).

Could you please explain how Vyse, prior to any hypothetical insertion of several more false crew-marks, could have gone about lifting this stone?  Been eating lots of spinach, had he?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 minute ago, Scott Creighton said:

Deflection.

Offer up a plausible explanation as to what prevented Vyse or Raven from observing the quarry marks in LA's chamber during their initial inspection. That's all you have to do - put up a plausible explanation and this will go away.

Let's have it. Whatcha got?

SC

SC. As I noted to you some time ago: You are simply not worth talking too. Did you forget? Your madness in wanting to go over and over the same thing is both funny and pathological. lol

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.