The Great Pyramid Hoax - New Evidence of Forgery in the Great Pyramid

a reply to: Mr Mask

LOL you are a funny man. He did say it was a presentation. Hover over the link and it says ppt. And besides? He is a trusted member on ATS. Hell there is a forum named after him. I do not know why many people give you that many stars.

He is a busy man.

I am still laughing but ok.

As to OP it just confirms what we all already knew.

Hi Scott,

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

You seem to be going down the debunked Sitchin argument. The case I present has NOTHING to do with Sitchin whatsoever. Period.

But how can it not do, when Sitchin was the one who originally raised the whole question of a possible forgery in the Great Pyramid? Let’s put it another way: had it not been for Sitchin and the Stairway to Heaven, would you have gone to Aylesbury to look at Vyse’s journal?

No one was more astonished than Sitchin when one of his readers claimed that one of that reader’s ancestors had seen what he thought was some repainted markings in the relieving chambers (the logbook doesn’t say anything about location, or date, and nor does it say anything about forgery).

But your position now seems to be that Sitchin reached all the right conclusions for what were largely the wrong reasons, but that what you supposedly found in Vyse’s largely illegible journal makes the supposed evidence of Allen’s logbook, together with Sitchin’s initial accusation, largely redundant.

Your case, as far as I can make out, relies on Vyse having found, somewhere on the plateau of Giza, a set of quarrymarks - whose significance wasn’t fully appreciated until much later on – and reproducing them inside the relieving chambers of the GP in such a way that they that were eventually found to slot neatly into a 4th Dynasty system of building instructions unsuspected in Vyse's era?

Doesn’t something about this strike you as strangely ill-balanced and lopsided, relying as it does on shaky coincidence after shaky coincidence, on initial suggestions and evidence that you yourself ultimately dismiss as unfounded and/or unnecessary, and then on certain essential factors that the supposed malefactor couldn’t even have known about at the time?

Regards,

Hooke

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Vyse’s two drawings in his journal with the blank disc ALSO have the two dots under the snake glyph which are apparent only in the chamber and Vyse’s notes and NOT in Wilkinson (or any of Wilkinson’s contemporaries). Furthermore, Vyse writes alongside the entry of 16th June with the blank disc the words: “in Campbell’s Chamber”. It could not be clearer that he drew what was in front of him in Cmapbell’s Chamber.

As you say, the drawings in Vyse's journal did not match any in Wilkinson's book. Vyse drew what he saw in the chamber, and labeled it “in Campbell’s Chamber” as you point out.

Now consider, IF Vyse wanted to perpetrate a fraud, he would have painted Khufu's name in the manner Wilkinson and other experts of the day believed it should be spelled. Hw would not have strayed from Wilkinson. He would have made it match what was in Wilkinson's book.

Vyse may well have relied on Wilkinson but no one can be certain. It would certainly explain why he initially drew the Khufu cartouche in the chamber with just a blank disc. What IS certain is that Vyse had a source of information that told him that the Khufu disc was spelled with a blank disc which is why he drew it TWICE this way in his diary and why he initially had it painted this way in the chamber (only to go back weeks later and add in the lines)

Pure conjecture. Considering the only reference material Vyse had with him was Wilkinson's book it would stand to reason he would refer to it. The rest are your wild assumptions.

SC: A couple of things here. The marks that go between the immovable blocks are merely mason’s marks, there are no registers of hieroglyphs here. Just randomly spaced mason’s marks—no hieroglyphs and most certainly no cartouches. I confirmed this with Graham Hancock who has actually been in there looking at the marks between these blocks.

This is Khufu's cartouche running along a block that goes beneath a floor block.


And since you bring up Graham Hancock as a supporting witness, then let's see his own quote on the matter:

“There were no restrictions on where I looked and I had ample time to examine the hieroglyphs closely, under powerful lights. Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began.”

It would seem Hancock disagrees with you greatly on the matter, perhaps you should consult him a little more carefully?

If Vyse found an inscription (a secret source) with the Khufu name (which he could identify) then he simply copies it and whatever else is beside or round about it. He doesn’t need to understand what is written there—he knows whatever it says is related in some way to the thing he CAN recognize i.e. the Khufu cartouche. Vyse could very easily have copied the Horus name from this secret source into the chamber without having the first clue about what he was copying. The only thing that mattered is that whatever it was he was copying (which he couldn’t read) was related in some way to Khufu, probably the only thing he could read.

Annnnd here is where your theory goes off the rails... you have to conjure up a "secret source" for hieratic inscriptions, complete sentences which include Khufu's horus' name, at the time unknown to Egyptology in 1837.

Of course, in the 150 years since, this "secret source" for these pyramid-builder inscriptions has never been found.

Ask yourself this - HAD Vyse found a previously unknown hieratic script mentioning Khufu, written centuries before it was thought Egyptians had such writing, that alone would have been a famous discovery. But no, you would have us believe Vyse hid this discovery, all to pull off some act of forgery elsewhere.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Vyse’s two drawings in his journal with the blank disc ALSO have the two dots under the snake glyph which are apparent only in the chamber and Vyse’s notes and NOT in Wilkinson (or any of Wilkinson’s contemporaries). Furthermore, Vyse writes alongside the entry of 16th June with the blank disc the words: “in Campbell’s Chamber”. It could not be clearer that he drew what was in front of him in Cmapbell’s Chamber.

As you say, the drawings in Vyse's journal did not match any in Wilkinson's book. Vyse drew what he saw in the chamber, and labeled it “in Campbell’s Chamber” as you point out.

Now consider, IF Vyse wanted to perpetrate a fraud, he would have painted Khufu's name in the manner Wilkinson and other experts of the day believed it should be spelled. Hw would not have strayed from Wilkinson. He would have made it match what was in Wilkinson's book.

Vyse may well have relied on Wilkinson but no one can be certain. It would certainly explain why he initially drew the Khufu cartouche in the chamber with just a blank disc. What IS certain is that Vyse had a source of information that told him that the Khufu disc was spelled with a blank disc which is why he drew it TWICE this way in his diary and why he initially had it painted this way in the chamber (only to go back weeks later and add in the lines)

Pure conjecture. Considering the only reference material Vyse had with him was Wilkinson's book it would stand to reason he would refer to it. The rest are your wild assumptions.

SC: A couple of things here. The marks that go between the immovable blocks are merely mason’s marks, there are no registers of hieroglyphs here. Just randomly spaced mason’s marks—no hieroglyphs and most certainly no cartouches. I confirmed this with Graham Hancock who has actually been in there looking at the marks between these blocks.

This is Khufu's cartouche running along a block that goes beneath a floor block.

And since you bring up Graham Hancock as a supporting witness, then let's see his own quote on the matter:

“There were no restrictions on where I looked and I had ample time to examine the hieroglyphs closely, under powerful lights. Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began.”

It would seem Hancock disagrees with you greatly on the matter, perhaps you should consult him a little more carefully?

If Vyse found an inscription (a secret source) with the Khufu name (which he could identify) then he simply copies it and whatever else is beside or round about it. He doesn’t need to understand what is written there—he knows whatever it says is related in some way to the thing he CAN recognize i.e. the Khufu cartouche. Vyse could very easily have copied the Horus name from this secret source into the chamber without having the first clue about what he was copying. The only thing that mattered is that whatever it was he was copying (which he couldn’t read) was related in some way to Khufu, probably the only thing he could read.

Annnnd here is where your theory goes off the rails... you have to conjure up a "secret source" for hieratic inscriptions, complete sentences which include Khufu's horus' name, at the time unknown to Egyptology in 1837.

Of course, in the 150 years since, this "secret source" for these pyramid-builder inscriptions has never been found.

Ask yourself this - HAD Vyse found a previously unknown hieratic script mentioning Khufu, written centuries before it was thought Egyptians had such writing, that alone would have been a famous discovery. But no, you would have us believe Vyse hid this discovery, all to pull off some act of forgery elsewhere.

Is it possible to date that red ink to tell how long it has been applied for?

Also it seems the highest bit of juxtaposition that they would build this entire grand, immaculate, epic great pyramid and then just sloppily scribble 2 or 3 symbols on it. Why wouldnt they carve what they wanted to say like they seemed to have done for all else, when they meant it?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Is it possible to date that red ink to tell how long it has been applied for?

Also it seems the highest bit of juxtaposition that they would build this entire grand, immaculate, epic great pyramid and then just sloppily scribble 2 or 3 symbols on it. Why wouldnt they carve what they wanted to say like they seemed to have done for all else, when they meant it?

The red pigment is iron oxide, it's non-organic. Another problem with radiocarbon dating would be the level of contamination the chambers have suffered.

As far as the "sloppy scribble," it's workmen graffiti and marks made by masons during the construction. It was never intended to be seen by anyone, ever, after the room was sealed. The work gangs had names like "Khufu is pure," and "Khufu is bright." Another hieratic inscription reads "May the White Crown of Khufu strengthen the sailing!" The blocks making up the chambers were transported from across the Nile, and relied on ships to bring them there. The inscriptions are scrawled at all angled, upside down or sideways, as evidenced they were placed on the individual blocks either at the quarry or enroute, certainly before the blocks were set into place. It's not know exactly whether these gangs were quarrymen, shippers/loading crews, or hauling/transport crews, or the masons who placed them. For all we know, the hidden faces of the blocks contain many more mason marks and inscriptions, but short of dismantling the entire pyramid we could never know. Work gang related graffiti is found in other tombs and sites in Egypt as well.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: ImaFungi

Is it possible to date that red ink to tell how long it has been applied for?

Also it seems the highest bit of juxtaposition that they would build this entire grand, immaculate, epic great pyramid and then just sloppily scribble 2 or 3 symbols on it. Why wouldnt they carve what they wanted to say like they seemed to have done for all else, when they meant it?

The red pigment is iron oxide, it's non-organic. Another problem with radiocarbon dating would be the level of contamination the chambers have suffered.

As far as the "sloppy scribble," it's workmen graffiti and marks made by masons during the construction. It was never intended to be seen by anyone, ever, after the room was sealed. The work gangs had names like "Khufu is pure," and "Khufu is bright." Another hieratic inscription reads "May the White Crown of Khufu strengthen the sailing!" The blocks making up the chambers were transported from across the Nile, and relied on ships to bring them there. The inscriptions are scrawled at all angled, upside down or sideways, as evidenced they were placed on the individual blocks either at the quarry or enroute, certainly before the blocks were set into place. It's not know exactly whether these gangs were quarrymen, shippers/loading crews, or hauling/transport crews, or the masons who placed them. For all we know, the hidden faces of the blocks contain many more mason marks and inscriptions, but short of dismantling the entire pyramid we could never know. Work gang related graffiti is found in other tombs and sites in Egypt as well.

Are there images of some of the other scrawled inscriptions? And this is all evidence to attempt to prove when the pyramids were constructed (thats what the argument is about)? From historical records, it is known the name inscribed in that graffiti relates to a name of a ruler of a specific time period, so it is said, that ruler must have been the constructor, and must have constructed them than? It seems like, something of an argument, but still hard to abandon all skeptically, having scribbles as the only evidence. Though I wonder how hard it would be, only having the skyscrapers of Manhatten, the buildings themselves and nothing else, to date their year of construction. How is it not possible for the graffiti to have be written long after the pyramids construction? Is the only argument, that the graffiti was found in a sealed chamber? And the argument as to why it cannot be that the chamber was at one time not sealed, or openable, and then sealed at a later date after the writing took place?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Your line of questions, while valid, and I'm not belittling you here, indicate a lack of background on the GP's relieving chambers and those hieratic and hieroglyphic inscriptions contained therein. Suffice to say, the chambers were never opened prior to Vyse's blasting them open with black powder, and had not seen the light of day since they were sealed shut during the pyramid's construction. They were never designed to have allowed access, but are a structural design to take some of the weight of the mass of stonework above it off of the King's Chamber below. Those inscriptions found were not placed on the walls of the chamber, but instead were placed on the stone blocks previously to being put in their final place. Again, the builders did not daub those marks onto completed walls, but onto the individual blocks, which were then put into place, leaving those marks still visible to end up in haphazard orientations.

As it happens, Scott Creighton has devised a theory that the Great Pyramid is 20,000 years old, but to make his theory work he has to counter a few facts about the pyramid's true age - such as these inscription's that include the name of Pharaoh Khufu, and a radio carbon dating project from 1985 and 1994 that established it's age as consistent with the Old Kingdom.

The scientific theory tells us to go where the evidence points. Not the other way around. You don't pick a conclusion first, then cherry pick the evidence to support your conclusion, and you certainly don't ignore or thwart evidence that contravenes your conclusion.

originally posted by: Hooke
Hi Scott,

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

You seem to be going down the debunked Sitchin argument. The case I present has NOTHING to do with Sitchin whatsoever. Period.

But how can it not do, when Sitchin was the one who originally raised the whole question of a possible forgery in the Great Pyramid? Let’s put it another way: had it not been for Sitchin and the Stairway to Heaven, would you have gone to Aylesbury to look at Vyse’s journal?

No one was more astonished than Sitchin when one of his readers claimed that one of that reader’s ancestors had seen what he thought was some repainted markings in the relieving chambers (the logbook doesn’t say anything about location, or date, and nor does it say anything about forgery).

But your position now seems to be that Sitchin reached all the right conclusions for what were largely the wrong reasons, but that what you supposedly found in Vyse’s largely illegible journal makes the supposed evidence of Allen’s logbook, together with Sitchin’s initial accusation, largely redundant.

Your case, as far as I can make out, relies on Vyse having found, somewhere on the plateau of Giza, a set of quarrymarks - whose significance wasn’t fully appreciated until much later on – and reproducing them inside the relieving chambers of the GP in such a way that they that were eventually found to slot neatly into a 4th Dynasty system of building instructions unsuspected in Vyse's era?

Doesn’t something about this strike you as strangely ill-balanced and lopsided, relying as it does on shaky coincidence after shaky coincidence, on initial suggestions and evidence that you yourself ultimately dismiss as unfounded and/or unnecessary, and then on certain essential factors that the supposed malefactor couldn’t even have known about at the time?

Regards,

Hooke

It’s a classic case of ad hoc rationalisation and a prime candidate for Occam’s Razor.

It posits an additional set of inscriptions for which there is no evidence at all (not even from “eyewitness” Humphries Brewer). (I note that Humphries Brewer has now been reinstated. I see no reason to trust someone whose treatment of evidence is so variable and opportunistic.)

Note the massive concession this scenario makes. It concedes that Vyse found genuine inscriptions, containing three (3) names of Khufu. It merely insists (for reasons which are both post hoc and extraordinarily weak) that he found them somewhere other than in the pyramid.

Now, given that Vyse’s investigations were focused primarily on the pyramids, we may fairly ask (and I think we should) where Vyse did find them, if not where he said he did. No candidates have been offered.

M.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hi BM,

SC: Vyse’s two drawings in his journal with the blank disc ALSO have the two dots under the snake glyph which are apparent only in the chamber and Vyse’s notes and NOT in Wilkinson (or any of Wilkinson’s contemporaries). Furthermore, Vyse writes alongside the entry of 16th June with the blank disc the words: “in Campbell’s Chamber”. It could not be clearer that he drew what was in front of him in Cmapbell’s Chamber.

BM: As you say, the drawings in Vyse's journal did not match any in Wilkinson's book. Vyse drew what he saw in the chamber, and labeled it “in Campbell’s Chamber” as you point out.

SC: EXCEPT – Vyse drew a blank disc TWICE into his journal and did NOT copy the hatched disc that we observe in the chamber today into his diary. Why?

BM: Now consider, IF Vyse wanted to perpetrate a fraud, he would have painted Khufu's name in the manner Wilkinson and other experts of the day believed it should be spelled. Hw would not have strayed from Wilkinson. He would have made it match what was in Wilkinson's book.

SC: And he did—initially.

SC: Vyse may well have relied on Wilkinson but no one can be certain. It would certainly explain why he initially drew the Khufu cartouche in the chamber with just a blank disc. What IS certain is that Vyse had a source of information that told him that the Khufu disc was spelled with a blank disc which is why he drew it TWICE this way in his diary and why he initially had it painted this way in the chamber (only to go back weeks later and add in the lines)

BM: Pure conjecture. Considering the only reference material Vyse had with him was Wilkinson's book …

SC: Care to present evidence of that?

BM: …it would stand to reason he would refer to it.

SC: And is quite possibly the reason he initially had the Khufu cartouche with just a blank disc drawn into the chamber.

BM: The rest are your wild assumptions.

SC: Well, I am sure it must help ease your discomfiture by dismissing all of this as “assumptions” but let us deal with the FACTS shall we.

1) On 27th May Vyse having opened Campbell’s Chamber draws the Khufu cartouche on that day with an unhatched disc. There are no horizontal lines to be seen in the disc.

2) On 16th June Vyse AGAIN draws the Khufu cartouche with an unhatched disc. There are no horizontal lines to be seen in the disc. Alongside this Vyse even helps us by stating clearly “in Campbell’s chamber”.
3) On 16th June Vyse visits the Tomb of the Trades where he observes the Khufu cartouche with hatched lines—he even draws one of the hatched discs in his journal for reference.
4) The very last piece of free space on the page of 16th June suddenly appears with a hatched disc and does so only after Vyse’s clear deliberations at the Tomb of the Trades.

Those are the FACTS, not ASSUMPTIONS. And there is another very pertinent fact to all of this which I have yet to reveal from Vyse’s handwritten journal—that’s the part where he makes reference to an instruction to his assistants to place hieroglyphs within the chambers. (This further evidence will be presented in due course).

SC: A couple of things here. The marks that go between the immovable blocks are merely mason’s marks, there are no registers of hieroglyphs here. Just randomly spaced mason’s marks—no hieroglyphs and most certainly no cartouches. I confirmed this with Graham Hancock who has actually been in there looking at the marks between these blocks.


BM: This is Khufu's cartouche running along a block that goes beneath a floor block.

SC: Wrong. This cartouche is actually painted onto one of the gabled roof trussings in Campbell’s Chamber and is aligned vertically. The trussing rests on a low support wall (not the floor) and, as you can see in the enhanced image below, the cartouche terminates right on the junction where the trussing meets the support wall. How so very convenient don’t you think. Squeezed the cartouche in and no more.



Furthermore—it has long been held that these markings were painted onto the blocks at the quarry. But look closely to the bottom right of the cartouche and you will see some paint running along the seam over some of the joint mortar. This cartouche was painted in-situ (from a horizontal master), not at the quarry.

BM: And since you bring up Graham Hancock as a supporting witness, then let's see his own quote on the matter:

“There were no restrictions on where I looked and I had ample time to examine the hieroglyphs closely, under powerful lights. Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began.”

It would seem Hancock disagrees with you greatly on the matter, perhaps you should consult him a little more carefully?

SC: Oh dear….

"In Fingerprints I supported the Vyse forgery theory. Later when I got into the relieving chambers myself and saw that some quarry marks disappear far back into the gaps between the blocks I felt that I must be wrong to support the forgery theory -- because no one could have got a brush into those gaps to carry out the forgery. Therefore the quarry marks must be genuine and must have been put on the blocks before they were put into place in the chamber. Accordingly I retracted the position I had taken in Fingerprints.

It's possible I threw the baby out with the bathwater with that retraction. Unlike the unforgeable quarry marks positioned between the blocks, the Khufu cartouche is in plain view and could easily have been forged by Vyse.

I do not insist it was, I just accept that it could have been, and that some interesting doubts have been raised over its authenticity. I await further evidence one way or the other." – Graham Hancock, 4th April, 2011 (from here).

SC: What was that you were saying about checking sources more carefully?

Continued......

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Continued from previous....

SC: If Vyse found an inscription (a secret source) with the Khufu name (which he could identify) then he simply copies it and whatever else is beside or round about it. He doesn’t need to understand what is written there—he knows whatever it says is related in some way to the thing he CAN recognize i.e. the Khufu cartouche. Vyse could very easily have copied the Horus name from this secret source into the chamber without having the first clue about what he was copying. The only thing that mattered is that whatever it was he was copying (which he couldn’t read) was related in some way to Khufu, probably the only thing he could read.

BM: Annnnd here is where your theory goes off the rails... you have to conjure up a "secret source" for hieratic inscriptions, complete sentences which include Khufu's horus' name, at the time unknown to Egyptology in 1837.

SC: This isn’t a theory. It is FACT. Vyse placed in his journal TWICE a Khufu cartouche with a BLANK disc which he states is from Campbell’s Chamber. That’s FACT not THEORY. Deal with the facts.

BM: Of course, in the 150 years since, this "secret source" for these pyramid-builder inscriptions has never been found.

SC: Why would you expect to find it? Vyse, a known fraudster, is hardly likely to send his secret source to the British Museum where Mr Birch, upon examining it, recognizes the great similarity to the markings in the Great Pyramid. “In fact, if I didn’t know any better. I’d say these were a copy of each other,” Mr Birch might say. Do you really think that Vyse, a known fraudster, would be that dumb?

BM: Ask yourself this - HAD Vyse found a previously unknown hieratic script mentioning Khufu, written centuries before it was thought Egyptians had such writing, that alone would have been a famous discovery. But no, you would have us believe Vyse hid this discovery, all to pull off some act of forgery elsewhere.

SC: Eh, no. Vyse didn’t make a discovery of the Horus name or hieratic script. He simply didn’t know what it was he was copying. It was for later linguists to determine what these markings were. The only thing that mattered to Vyse was the one thing he COULD recognize – KHUFU. Whatever else was there within the script of his secret source is irrelevant to him because he would never be able to interpret it—but he copies it all anyway because it was found along with what he DID recognize—KHUFU.

And you wrote in response to ImaFungi:

BM: The red pigment is iron oxide, it's non-organic.

SC: The paint CAN be C14 tested if the will is there to do it. Yes, the iron-oxide pigment is non-organic but the binding agent in ancient times would typically have been honey, gum or fish oil—all organic matter.

BM: Another problem with radiocarbon dating would be the level of contamination the chambers have suffered.

SC: We won’t know that until scientists are allowed in there to test samples. And I am sure modern science could have a whole array of tests that could determine the chemical composition of the paint and many other tests that might help determine its provenance. Yes the paint may have been contaminated but let us see what is the OLDEST date that comes back.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Here we have a blustering rhetoric of FACT (Creighton is very prone to shouting), followed by pure conjecture served up as fact.

The image he presents (as already discussed on GHMB) is a product of his fiddling with the levels until he saw what he wanted to see. Looking at the original (and I really do mean the original) it’s not obvious that there is red paint at the location specified. This, surely, is something which should be verified in situ, before being trumpeted as a FACT.

Even if there is red paint at the joint, alternative explanations for its presence there have not been considered. (I can think of them with ease.)

On the journal:

Perhaps Creighton would like to explain why Vyse, “a known fraudster” and alleged forger, credited by his theory with preternatural cunning and foresight, would allow so incriminating a document to survive at all, once it had served its purpose. The fireplaces at Stoke Place were (and are) tolerably large.

M.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

“SC: This isn’t a theory. It is FACT. Vyse placed in his journal TWICE a Khufu cartouche with a BLANK disc which he states is from Campbell’s Chamber. That’s FACT not THEORY. Deal with the facts.”

You’ve been called on this untruth more than once. The first example has two dots in the circle:

imageshack.com...

I suggest you deal with the facts and stop trying to mislead these good people.

“FACT” def= “a Creighton factoid”

M.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

“I’d say these were a copy of each other.”

Savour the logic of this statement.

M.

Ah I was away but I see many others have jumped on this and are doing an excellent job of pointing out the twisted logic of our good friend SC.

I too look forward to the day when science can date a non organic substance - not when it was created but when it was USED last----lol.

With regards to the often-demanded use of radiocarbon dating of red ochre or red iron oxide, as used in the mason marks we should consult a text that offers a great deal of technical background on such.

We've been told by fringe writers again and again that "they" must be hiding something because such mason marks have no definitive radiocarbon dating tests run on them, but has anyone in the fringe community ever asked WHY these tests might not be a valid method of dating them? Red iron oxide marks are found throughout Egypt, yet none of these have been tested. The massive Aswan obelisk has mason marks on it - no tests. Nearly every pyramid had such mason marks, no tests. They'll allude this is part of a coverup, but the simple reality is that unless paints are used with an organic binder, radiocarbon dating them will not prove anything.

Refer to:
Ancient Egyptian Material and Industries, by A. Lucas & J. Harris, reprint 2012
Chapter XIV - Painting Materials: Writing Materials, pg. 338

The book preview starts at page 345 and picks up with the topic of "paint vehicles," and covers all types of mediums and binders used throughout ancient Egyptian history but of interest to us is the 4th Dynasty, where tomb paintings were typically of tempura painting. Oils of various types, linseed, turpentine, and petroleum based, are associated with later periods. Now tempura painting involves organic matter, but this is reserved for the intricate paintings associated with tombs, the fine filigreed artwork built up with glazes and used a variety of colors. But this is not what concerns us, we are interested in the mason marks of red ochre.

The text delves into the differences in the red ochres found in ancient Egypt, the extensive variations in composition of these across the dynasties. For the mason marks of Khufu's era, they were likely red iron oxide (called by some texts red haematite), and red ocherous clays (some mixed with manganese in the 4th Dynasty).

On page 351, the author states that red and yellow ochres "will adhere to plaster and stone if applied dry, and although the ochres will adhere still better if wetted, others of the ancient pigments, such as azurite, malachite, and the blue and green frits, will not normally adhere without some binding material." In other words, red and yellow ochres do not require a binding agent, even if used as a paint for finished art, the context of which the author was speaking. In some tomb paintings there was no need for a binding material at all for the pigments as they were embedded in the plaster.

It would seem our mason marks are a simple composition - red iron oxide wetted with water and daubed on. No need for binders, glazes, tempura, or oils. These were not high quality or expensive paints, the type reserved for the tombs. Indeed, it would have been highly frivolous and wasteful to make red ochre for the masons using ingredients like honey or gums, when all they needed was red ochre clay and water. Mason marks are found throughout the pyramids. They are found on the reverse sides of the Tura casing blocks, they are found inside the "air shafts" leading from the King's Chamber. Red ochre guide lines have been found along with work gang names or hieratic numerals in all manner of places. For the great amount of red ochre needed by the masons, it would be highly doubtful it was made with anything other than red ochre and water.

Getting back to the notion of Vyse or anyone committing a "forgery," not only would Vyse have to have forged a previously unknown hieratic script involving Khufu's Horus name of Medjed, written into complete sentences, which Creighton has not sufficiently addressed, but Vyse would have had to recreate a 4th Dynasty era red ochre paint. Referring to Ancient Egyptian Material and Industries, this was not an easy task due to the aforementioned variations of such by era. Yet, we see from photos taken around the relieving chambers as well as deep within the air shafts, these mason marks are virtually identical in color.

Red ochre's use and composition can vary greatly from what I have read. My suspicion is that the mason marks are simply undateable for lack of organic matter. Again, red iron oxide in non-organic and it only needs to be wetted to act as a paint for crude mason marks, no need for binders.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hi BM,

BM: My suspicion is that the mason marks are simply undateable for lack of organic matter.

SC: Your "suspicion" tells us little. That is why the marks in these chambers require scientific analysis to determine their chemical composition and, if possible, their date. We won't know what information this paint holds until such tests are done in an open and transparent fashion. Given the recent questions raised that cast doubt over the authenticity of these chamber markings (with more incriminating evidence to come), I think it has become imperative that these tests are done. I don't see why anyone with a serious pursuit of the truth of these markings via the scientific method should have a problem with that.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hi BM,

BM: My suspicion is that the mason marks are simply undateable for lack of organic matter.

SC: Your "suspicion" tells us little. That is why the marks in these chambers require scientific analysis to determine their chemical composition and, if possible, their date. We won't know what information this paint holds until such tests are done in an open and transparent fashion. Given the recent questions raised that cast doubt over the authenticity of these chamber markings (with more incriminating evidence to come), I think it has become imperative that these tests are done. I don't see why anyone with a serious pursuit of the truth of these markings via the scientific method should have a problem with that.

SC

It has, however, been explained:

www.grahamhancock.com...

M.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

i haven't read it yet, but i'm excited to do so. wooot.
off i go, and if i like what i see, i'll be one of your biggest fans henceforth!

a reply to: mstower

Consider the usual litany: “Test the paint!”

Several problems with that, but in the real world, it’s not in my gift to arrange it (so why tax me with it?) and after Görlitz and Erdmann, it’s never going to happen.

But suppose for the sake of argument that it did and the result came up Old Kingdom. What’s to stop someone piping up with something like this? “Vyse found a cache of ancient Egyptian paint. He broke the vessels containing it and had Hill and Raven pound the dried-up paint into powder. Then they added the purest water they could find (distilled) and used the resulting paint for the forgery.”

I can see nothing stopping someone saying this. Indeed why should they not?

Which has been pretty much their reaction to the radiocarbon test of the pyramid itself, which proved it's an Old Kingdom edifice. Instead of acknowledging the test results, a definitive proof of the type they are always demanding, they chose to ignore it, or revised their "theory" that the pyramid was only rebuilt in the 4th dynasty but surely that 20,000 year old original construction must lurk inside it, still unseen and untested. In other words, the goal posts will keep shifting to stay ahead of reality.

haven't finished the presentation yet, but i wanted to read the thread real quick first, and noticed this particular image is not present in the thread yet.
so here it is