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
39 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Vyse lower letter 'b' comparison:

Zk5WePk.jpg

SC

I’m going to have to disagree this time Scott, there is a pronounced curve on the “b” before it runs into the next letter that’s absent in the word in question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Vyse lower letter 'b' comparison:

Zk5WePk.jpg

SC

With selected instances you could in principle prove anything, but it’s not even clear that you’ve proven here what you imagine you’ve proven.

What you have shown, very clearly, is that Vyse does not reliably complete his letters and that his writing even of a given word varies considerably.  Look at what you’ve transcribed as “bed”.  It’s scarcely even a ligature bd.  Look at “Chamber”.  Are all of the letters there?  I don’t think so.  At best he’s written “Chaber”—and look how different it is from what what we see here:

aVIPfXG.jpg

—which looks (if anything) like “Chapler”.

So you can not with consistency claim that the initial character of the disputed word is reliably r and not n with (a) failure to complete, or (b) ligature to the following o, or (c) the following o suggested by a mere loop.

Now perhaps you’d like to consider the surely more important text?

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 ?loyal ?, ? ? ?.)  Mr Raven returned from the Great Pyramid, and ?soon ?after ?we ?ascended ?fr[om] ?Chamber ?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, & ?noted Armenian Effendi who had been educated in England, & who spoke good English.

M.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
9 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I’m going to have to disagree this time Scott, there is a pronounced curve on the “b” before it runs into the next letter that’s absent in the word in question.

Even in this small sample, we see notable variation.  The end of the b of “bed” becomes the beginning of the d.

M.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
9 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Learning by rote is to learn something by memorizing it totally and completely, often through force of repetition—like learning multiplication tables. 

I’ve seen it used transitively in Renaissance settings, but not in anything modern. It’s still grammatically and semantically correct. 

—Jaylemurph  

When I look for “roted scholar”, what I find are typographical or OCR errors with the correct reading clearly “noted scholar”.

M.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

I’m going to have to disagree this time Scott, there is a pronounced curve on the “b” before it runs into the next letter that’s absent in the word in question.

Such are the vagaries of Vyse's writing style. Which is why it is difficult to read. The post was simply to show that his lower case 'b' looks very much like the letter 'l' (as does some of his other letters). Which is why, of course, context is important.

NY3HK2v.jpg

was 39 long, by 19.10 broad

The 'b' in 'by' and 'broad' look like the letter 'l' (as does the 'b' in 'robed'). For the record - I do not insist this is the word 'robed' but I consider it contextually to be the best option. Others, of course, are perfectly free to disagree.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MDagger

People say my writing is awful.

The word in question looks more like 'sober' to me.....

MDagger

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
34 minutes ago, MDagger said:

People say my writing is awful.

The word in question looks more like 'sober' to me.....

MDagger

The initial letter of the word in question looks much like the s of “should” in the example shown below it:

Zk5WePk.jpg

But Vyse’s letters are often similar, and the greater his haste, the more similar they become.

M.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph

How many amateur paleographers does it take to parse a text? :)

—Jaylemurph 

Share this post


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

How many amateur paleographers does it take to parse a text? :)

—Jaylemurph 

42+-

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph

I’d throw in my two cents, but it’s too close to my IRL work to do for free. 

—Jaylemurph 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ell
19 hours ago, mstower said:

The initial letter of the word in question looks much like the s of “should” in the example shown below it:

No, it does not.

Besides, waht you regard as the initial letter is actually the first half - the first leg - of the letter n.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ell
Just now, Ell said:

No, it does not.

Besides, what you regard as the initial letter is actually the first half - the first leg - of the letter n.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
32 minutes ago, Ell said:

No, it does not.

Besides, what you regard as the initial letter is actually the first half - the first leg - of the letter n.

As preceding, my reading of the word is “noted”.  The point I wish to make is, the various things Vyse writes are sufficiently similar to each other to be confused (and that if anything is an understatement).  I can see what people are seeing if they think it looks like “robed” or “sober”.  Again, my reading is “noted”.

M.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
5 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

I’d throw in my two cents, but it’s too close to my IRL work to do for free. 

—Jaylemurph 

All input is welcome.  Warning: the samples we’ve seen here are far from being the worst of the writing in the journal.  It was established in earlier discussions (not sure where) that at least one professional company had turned the job down.

As above, I think the focus should be on this: Mr Raven returned from the Great Pyramid, and ?soon ?after ?we ?ascended ?fr[om] ?Chamber ?int[o] ?the room above Nelson’s, . . .

M.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

All input is welcome.  Warning: the samples we’ve seen here are far from being the worst of the writing in the journal.  It was established in earlier discussions (not sure where) that at least one professional company had turned the job down ...

Possibly  here.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower

Anyone wondering where Creighton has gone need wonder no longer.  Having run away from discussing the evidence with those who can fault him on it, he has taken this “argument” to podcast land:

https://www.google.com/search?q="lost+origins"+s02e03+creighton+hoax

M.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, mstower said:

Anyone wondering where Creighton has gone need wonder no longer.  Having run away from discussing the evidence with those who can fault him on it, he has taken this “argument” to podcast land:

https://www.google.com/search?q="lost+origins"+s02e03+creighton+hoax

M.

Chuckle...sure was a lot left unsaid in that blurb....

Quote

removing the only physical evidence that dates the Great Pyramid’s construction to the reign of Khufu

Oh, my

Edited by Hanslune

Share this post


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

Anyone wondering where Creighton has gone need wonder no longer.  Having run away from discussing the evidence with those who can fault him on it, he has taken this “argument” to podcast land:

https://www.google.com/search?q="lost+origins"+s02e03+creighton+hoax

M.

A typical pattern. He will also likely return to his "tour" of local libraries frequented by the doddering and misguided. As previously noted, his "contributions" to credible research are, shall we say, notably lacking.

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Anyone wondering where Creighton has gone need wonder no longer.  Having run away from discussing the evidence with those who can fault him on it, he has taken this “argument” to podcast land:

https://www.google.com/search?q="lost+origins"+s02e03+creighton+hoax

M.

Christ, it was tedious enough /reading/ his dreck. I can’t imagine having to listen to him drone on about it. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
Posted (edited)

Second Cartouche Exists on North Side of Campbell's Chamber

Second Khufu cartouche right there in the middle:
HERE.
Use the scroll/zoom feature to see it larger:
Campbell's Chamber

Here we can clearly see the beginnings of a second Khufu cartouche. Was this too a fake then?

To view all the quarry marks transcribed by Perring:
The pyramids of Gizeh: from actual survey and admeasurementClick > to go to the next chamber. 

For reference:
Graffiti-Names.jpg 

Looking at all the chambers, by my count there are 12 full/partial cartouches in which 2 are visibly Khufu cartouches, the main one and the second partial noted above on the North Side. The rest are Khnum-Khufu. I also count at least 3 instances of Khufu's Horus name that is not enclosed in a cartouche. There are also at least 4 lines of hieroglyphs like those that precede the other Khnum-Khufu cartouches and one (the one a few feet away from the main Khufu cartouche discussed in previous threads) that would belong to the Khufu cartouche:

Dominique1a.jpg

For context, I would also note again both the Khnum-Khufu and Khufu cartouches appear together in the Wadi al-Jarf papyri:
57312569f1ee9c9d98f1745ad6313cf5.jpg
4K3pv3b.jpg

The Khnum-Khufu cartouche is also on one of the outside blocks:
3-cf659b0c0c.jpg

Both also appear in association with one another, including Khufu's serekh, at Wadi Maghareh:
500px-Khufu_Wadi_Maghara.png 

As noted before the cartouche first appears towards the end of the 3rd Dynasty and becomes ubiquitous in the 4th Dynasty and onward. I suggest in the above linked thread that these early examples may have actually been made in tribute during the 4th Dynasty leaving the provenance of the cartouche squarely within the 4th Dynasty and later. 

We can clearly see numerous examples of cartouches within the RC including at least two, maybe three, that are of the Khufu cartouche. We know the Khufu and Khnum Khufu cartouches are found in relation to each other elsewhere which obviously were not forged. We know, regardless of the minutia of what is actually written within the cartouche, that the cartouche itself at the very earliest was not even invented until the late 3rd Dynasty if not the 4th. Not to mention the Khnum-Khufu cartouche itself does not exist until the reign of Khufu. And yet once again the same pointless nonsensical arguing over numerous threads and countless posts by the same posters over and over again continues as if this is all somehow meaningless or doesn't exist. Its bizarre. 

To put it simply, something I have said many times, whether the main Khufu cartouche is a "forgery" or not is irrelevant as it does not explain how and when the DOZEN OTHER CARTOUCHES got there which could only have happened at the very earliest at the end of the 3rd Dynasty, which given the Khunum-Khufu cartouche was not even invented yet and does not appear until the Khufu cartouche does, we can reasonably conclude none were put there until at least the 4th Dynasty.

This is clear context, all but "proof", as to when the RC was built which unless one wishes to argue they are all fakes then they could only have been put there during construction of the RC.  

Game over. The challenge now is this: prove all the rest of the cartouches are "forgeries", including the other Khufu cartouche hiding in plain sight, or start explaining how people from the 4th Dynasty got into the RC and drew quarry marks all over including those that run between blocks. And for those that choose the latter, before the wheels start spinning, make sure to ask yourself first why would they put quarry marks all over the place including between stones, including dozens of alignment and placement markers, if they were not actually the ones putting the stones there.
 

Edited by Thanos5150
Add original link
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Second Cartouche Exists on North Side of Campbell's Chamber

Second Khufu cartouche right there in the middle:
HERE.
Use the scroll/zoom feature to see it larger:
Campbell's Chamber

Here we can clearly see the beginnings of a second Khufu cartouche. Was this too a fake then?

To view all the quarry marks transcribed by Perring:
The pyramids of Gizeh: from actual survey and admeasurementClick > to go to the next chamber. 

For reference:
Graffiti-Names.jpg 

Looking at all the chambers, by my count there are 12 full/partial cartouches in which 2 are visibly Khufu cartouches, the main one and the second partial noted above on the North Side. The rest are Khnum-Khufu. I also count at least 3 instances of Khufu's Horus name that is not enclosed in a cartouche. There are also at least 4 lines of hieroglyphs like those that precede the other Khnum-Khufu cartouches and one (the one a few feet away from the main Khufu cartouche discussed in previous threads) that would belong to the Khufu cartouche:

Dominique1a.jpg

For context, I would also note again both the Khnum-Khufu and Khufu cartouches appear together in the Wadi al-Jarf papyri:
57312569f1ee9c9d98f1745ad6313cf5.jpg
4K3pv3b.jpg

The Khnum-Khufu cartouche is also on one of the outside blocks:
3-cf659b0c0c.jpg

Both also appear in association with one another, including Khufu's serekh, at Wadi Maghareh:
500px-Khufu_Wadi_Maghara.png 

As noted before the cartouche first appears towards the end of the 3rd Dynasty and becomes ubiquitous in the 4th Dynasty and onward. I suggest in the above linked thread that these early examples may have actually been made in tribute during the 4th Dynasty leaving the provenance of the cartouche squarely within the 4th Dynasty and later. 

We can clearly see numerous examples of cartouches within the RC including at least two, maybe three, that are of the Khufu cartouche. We know the Khufu and Khnum Khufu cartouches are found in relation to each other elsewhere which obviously were not forged. We know, regardless of the minutia of what is actually written within the cartouche, that the cartouche itself at the very earliest was not even invented until the late 3rd Dynasty if not the 4th. Not to mention the Khnum-Khufu cartouche itself does not exist until the reign of Khufu. And yet once again the same pointless nonsensical arguing over numerous threads and countless posts by the same posters over and over again continues as if this is all somehow meaningless or doesn't exist. Its bizarre. 

To put it simply, something I have said many times, whether the main Khufu cartouche is a "forgery" or not is irrelevant as it does not explain how and when the DOZEN OTHER CARTOUCHES got there which could only have happened at the very earliest at the end of the 3rd Dynasty, which given the Khunum-Khufu cartouche was not even invented yet and does not appear until the Khufu cartouche does, we can reasonably conclude none were put there until at least the 4th Dynasty.

This is clear context, all but "proof", as to when the RC was built which unless one wishes to argue they are all fakes then they could only have been put there during construction of the RC.  

Game over. The challenge now is this: prove all the rest of the cartouches are "forgeries", including the other Khufu cartouche hiding in plain sight, or start explaining how people from the 4th Dynasty got into the RC and drew quarry marks all over including those that run between blocks. And for those that choose the latter, before the wheels start spinning, make sure to ask yourself first why would they put quarry marks all over the place including between stones, including dozens of alignment and placement markers, if they were not actually the ones putting the stones there.
 

Excellent work on your part and thank you!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
6 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Game over. 

I'm quite certain you'd love to believe that. However, since none of the other luminaries here has been able to offer up a credible/plausible explanation to the question in the OP, perhaps you would like to give it a go?

SC

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

...  none of the other luminaries here has been able to offer up a credible/plausible explanation to the question in the OP ...

Explanations have been given.

It's just that you chose to ignore them.

And can you tell us why a decision has been taken to once again disseminate this podcast, with its redundant mentions of Humphries Brewer as eyewitness to an alleged forgery?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I'm quite certain you'd love to believe that. However, since none of the other luminaries here has been able to offer up a credible/plausible explanation to the question in the OP, perhaps you would like to give it a go?

SC

A “credible/plausible explanation” as determined by that impeccably impartial authority, yourself?

Oh, no, you don’t.

You don’t judge our credibility.  We judge yours.

Imagining you can finesse this with bluster is not clever.

You’ve presented your “argument” and it’s been found wanting.

M.

Edited by mstower
To fix a typo and remove one word.
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Explanations have been given.

It's just that you chose to ignore them.

And can you tell us why a decision has been taken to once again disseminate this podcast, with its redundant mentions of Humphries Brewer as eyewitness to an alleged forgery?

I asked for "credible/plausible explanations". None have been given. At least, none that would satisfy any reasonably objective person.

Humphries Brewer? You haven't found it yet, have you?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

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.