Investigating the "Lost 4th Pyramid" at Giza

originally posted by: Hanslune
For Byrd







Pharoah's are all buried underground huh, those three off the top of my head seem to indicate something different.

Those are the Sahure, Meidum and Red Pyramids.

???

I don't remember saying anything about pharaohs all being buried underground. I remembered the Red Pyramid's chamber being above ground.

Ah well. If I said it, I was surely rattling off without thinking.

originally posted by: Deathiseven
a reply to: Hooke

Here is the same passage as published in the 1755 French and 1757 English editions:

In his letter to Martin Folkes, President of the Royal Society, commenting on Greaves' Pyramidographia, Norden states (147) that John Montagu, Earl of Sandwich, who was also travelling in the Near East, also saw the alleged fourth pyramid.

So why is there no mention of it in Montagu's A voyage round the Mediterranean?

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Hanslune
For Byrd







Pharoah's are all buried underground huh, those three off the top of my head seem to indicate something different.

Those are the Sahure, Meidum and Red Pyramids.

I don't remember saying anything about pharaohs all being buried underground. I remembered the Red Pyramid's chamber being above ground.

Ah well. If I said it, I was surely rattling off without thinking.

Yes you are innocent!

Some mumpsimus made the comment to you in the thread above. You didn't address it so I did so for you.

Cool, people are commenting and find this topic interesting!

My news feed the last few days has been spammed with half a dozen articles reiterating the claims about the causeway being located, allegedly, by apparently the guy who runs the Youtube channel "Ancient Architects" (a sometimes decent chan to check out).

After digging around I'm still really skeptical of the lost 4th Pyramid, but I do think these claims ought to be looked into more closely. I'm undecided but reluctant, considering all things and how often we get false leads etc.

If there really is a foundation for the lost 4th, than I'd like to find out more about Orion's Belt and if there really was a 4th star that went supernova. One part of that I find fascinating is that both the star and the pyramid are missing. This doesn't discount the possibility of them having been there, but it sure does make me skeptical.

a reply to: Byrd

Since you actually know a lot about this topic I need your help on this one:

In an article I read this morning, an Egyptologist from a University in Boston was saying that (paraphrased cuz I don't have the link anymore) - in reference to the topic of the 4th pyramid - "the pyramids are more than just tombs, they reveal the lives of the Egyptians as well with wall art" etc.

I'm sure we've all seen the depictions on the walls (from all over Egypt), I doubt anyone's never seen them.

Here's my question though, many people claim that inside of the pyramid(s)(?) there is no actual hieroglyphs or art other than the one that was found in a secret chamber and has since been debated thoroughly as a potential hoax.

Which is true?
Are there tons of inscriptions inside the pyramids or are there not?
Have you ever been there inside any of them to see yourself?

And to be more specific, is it only the Great Pyramid that lacks internal drawings/writings, or are all pyramids at the Giza site sharing this anomaly?

Are all pyramids barren of internal markings? Or is it just the ones at Giza, or is it just the main pyramid?

If you could help clarify this highly controversial issue I'd be most grateful and appreciative of your assistance.
Thanks!

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Byrd

If the Egyptians had those measurements, then why didn't they use them in writing and in recording very important things like the area of land donated by pharaohs or the area of land owned by nobles?

because our commalilty in language is maths. I am sure you are aware that there are three sub sets of hieroglyph. hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic. You think for some reason that their mathematics is any different.
Maths is a universal language and measurements speak for themselves. Lets be clear these object ozze the language of mathatics. It is waiting to be read by those that to read.

Then since I'm somewhat familiar with ancient Egyptian language, perhaps you can give me the AE version of the name of a meter and show where it's used? I see a lot of documentation about measurements in palms and cubits and so forth but no other linear measurement.

The Great Pyramid’s elevation encodes three of the most important constants in mathematics: π, Φ, and e. The slope angle of 51°51’ (51.85° in decimal form) comes from measurements taken off the remaining casing stones, according to detailed survey data from Flinders Petrie and J.H. Cole .

www.ancient-origins.net...

If it was encoding these wonderful principles, then why don't we see these formulas used in ancient Egypt? "e" (Euler's constant" for instance isn't used in measuring... it's used in deriving compound interest, in calculating probability (calculus), and in many other things which require calculus: en.wikipedia.org...(mathematical_constant)#Applications

Phi is equally problematical and calculating it requires using the square root function and division, which is difficult and tedious. And the "golden mean" wasn't used in constructing artwork (we know this from the grid lines and partially finished artwork in tombs.)

They did use pi, but used the ratio and not decimal points.

The "guest author" conveniently fails to describe how the Egyptians would have calculated these numbers (or even discovered them) and why they would have bothered with them.

Also... how would they have known the diameter of the Earth? Eratosthenes didn't know it and had to derive it from the sunlight in two different wells. if they had known it and knew it was important, why didn't they understand how big the world was and how small Egypt was compared to the rest of the world?

Calculating Phi may not be as problematic as we initially assume.

I will do more research into this to find a specific answer but for now I am of the hypothesis that someone well versed in using the Abacus could calculate it fairly accurately without too many problems.

I am not 100% certain about this, and so am researching this specific issue today.

Part of my initial research and reasoning seems to lead to the answer that Yes, calculating Phi was a lot easier than we currently presume:

From the Book I linked in the 42 threads - The Golden Ratio- The Story of Phi by Livio

With the above words, Leonardo of Pisa (in Latin Leonardus Pisanus), also known as Leonardo Fibonacci, began his first and best-known book, Liber abaci (Book of the abacus), published in 1202. At the time the book appeared, only a few privileged European intellectuals who cared to study the translations of the works of al-Khwarizmī and Abu Kamil knew the Hindu-Arabic numerals we use today. Fibonacci, who for a while joined his father, a customs and trading official, in Bugia (in present-day Algeria) and later traveled to other Mediterranean countries (including Greece, Egypt, and Syria), had the opportunity to study and compare different numerical systems and methods for arithmetical operations. Upon concluding that the Hindu-Arabic numerals, which included the place-value principle, were far superior to all other methods, he devoted the first seven chapters of his book to explanations of Hindu-Arabic notation and its use in practical applications.

So Leo Pisanus, aka Fibonacci, is actually famous for writing a book called "Book of the Abacus" where he brought the Arabic numeral system into play and, of course, Fibonacci is an integral part of any historic discussion of Phi, the famous sequence, etc.

So my current position is that merely using the Abacus itself we could calculate all of these numbers. I will dig further to make sure this is a viable position, and if I prove/disprove myself I'll try to come post the proofs later on.

I do believe with over 3000 years of Egyptian history that it's evident they could have on multiple separate occasions accurately calculated the diameter of the Earth's equator via the simple method Eratosthenes utilized. It only requires a bit of advanced mathematical thinking to come up with a basic measurement with primitive tools. So I would consider it plausible anyone, with math and a simple experiment, could derive the correct data no matter what time period or technological level they were at. The information was probably not commonly known, as most humans in history were illiterate, and so this information could have been lost in the fires at the libraries of Alexandria or Baghdad for example.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

... many people claim that inside of the pyramid(s)(?) there is no actual hieroglyphs or art other than the one that was found in a secret chamber and has since been debated thoroughly as a potential hoax. ...

Crew names incorporating a cartouche name of Khufu were found in the relieving chambers, as described in Roth - Phyles in the Old Kingdom, 126-132.

One or two were also found on some backing blocks; and also in the boat-pit.

Further discussion of these points, as well as the allegations of forgery in the Great Pyramid, is to be found here.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Byrd


Here's my question though, many people claim that inside of the pyramid(s)(?) there is no actual hieroglyphs or art other than the one that was found in a secret chamber and has since been debated thoroughly as a potential hoax.

Which is true?
Are there tons of inscriptions inside the pyramids or are there not?

Hi Muzzleflash,

There are no official inscriptions in any of the 4th Dynasty pyramids. Inscriptions (i.e. the Pyramid Texts) start appearing in pyramids of the 5th Dynasty. There are some unofficial old hieratic inscriptions within the 'Vyse Chambers' of the Great Pyramid. These are crude inscriptions painted onto a number of these chamber stones when they were (allegedly) first cut at the quarries by the various quarry gangs. That's the mainstream view.

However, many of these painted marks are, imo, clearly fake. But I shall leave you to make up your own mind. See here and an entire book full of supporting evidence here.

Regards,

SC

originally posted by: [post=24944478]Scott Creighton

There are no official inscriptions in any of the 4th Dynasty pyramids. Inscriptions (i.e. the Pyramid Texts) start appearing in pyramids of the 5th Dynasty. There are some unofficial old hieratic inscriptions within the 'Vyse Chambers' of the Great Pyramid. These are crude inscriptions painted onto a number of these chamber stones when they were (allegedly) first cut at the quarries by the various quarry gangs.

Yes Unas has the first inscriptions of the PT in his Tomb.

Deleted biased opinions......by the author of that book he links to.

You can read what Scott has made up or you can read what the truth is here in this book, www.amazon.com...=sr_1_3?keywords=martin+stower&qid=1581616556&sr=8-3, or the first volume here: www.amazon.com...=pd_sim_351_1/133-3140764-9161150?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i= B07NWTPL7T&pd_rd_r=c2516001-d8ab-472f-9e18-0c91def3546b&pd_rd_w=g2KLH&pd_rd_wg=jWXfM&pf_rd_p=65e3eab0-d81f-4a76-93ff-f0b7b1d6cd3d&pf_rd_r=SPB85TPH505E 7VKD0E12&psc=1&refRID=SPB85TPH505E7VKD0E12

a reply to: muzzleflash

If a star that would look like it was in Orion's belt from Earth had gone 'super nova' there would still be a clear indication of it.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

As others have noted and I did when I viewed the pyramids from the Al Mokattom - when the smog isn't to thick - you can see the satellite/Queen of Menkaure's, the one that is a pyramid and not the two which are step pyramids gives the illusion of 4 pyramids in line.

originally posted by: Hanslune

[snip]

Deleted biased opinions......by the author of that book he links to.

[snip]

“biased opinions”??

For my opinion on this issue to be “biased” it would have to have been formed from nothing more than some fuzzy feeling, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. However, that is far from the case, as you well know. My opinion (as any reasonable and objective person will easily see from the evidence I present in just this one article) is actually a ‘considered opinion’ that takes account of the empirical facts of the issue. Facts, rather than 'fuzzy feelings' help form my opinion, Hans.

Regards,

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

There are some unofficial old hieratic inscriptions within the 'Vyse Chambers' of the Great Pyramid. These are crude inscriptions painted onto a number of these chamber stones when they were (allegedly) first cut at the quarries by the various quarry gangs. That's the mainstream view.

However, many of these painted marks are, imo, clearly fake. But I shall leave you to make up your own mind. See here and an entire book full of supporting evidence here.

Over the years, your representation of what constitutes “the mainstream view” has frequently been disputed.

The “mainstream” view is that the marks in the relieving chambers were connected with labour organisation, put in place by scribes attached to the ˤprw (crews) - as explained, in detail, in the Roth work to which I linked previously.

You complain that the "old hieratic inscriptions" are "crude:" but this just goes to show how little you understand even now of what you pronounce on with would-be expertise.

As for your "entire book full of supporting evidence": you appear to have forgotten that, in that book, you are nowhere near as confident in your conclusions as you are here.

a reply to: Hooke

Hermione: The “mainstream” view is that the marks in the relieving chambers were connected with labour organisation, put in place by scribes attached to the ˤprw (crews) - as explained, in detail, in the Roth work to which I linked previously.

SC: Yes, by various gangs of workers at the quarries. Which is what I said.

Hermione: You complain that the "old hieratic inscriptions" are "crude:"

SC: It’s not a complaint. It’s an observation made from some photos of some of the marks and various representations of them drawn by others. They are roughly painted marks with red ochre paint with many of them illegible. They are not pristine painted hieroglyphics that we see in later Egyptian tombs. So describing these painted marks as “crudely painted” is not a complaint but a perfectly reasonable description of them. Why you would think otherwise is odd.

Hermione: ... but this just goes to show how little you understand even now of what you pronounce on with would-be expertise.

SC: Really? Do explain.

Hermione: As for your "entire book full of supporting evidence": you appear to have forgotten that, in that book, you are nowhere near as confident in your conclusions as you are here.

SC: In my book (and subsequent articles), I merely present anomalies that I (and others) have observed in various items of evidence and leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion based on the evidence presented. Which I consider to be the right approach. My personal opinion (which I have expressed many times elsewhere) is that there are simply too many anomalies in the available evidence to draw any conclusion other than Vyse (and his assistants) fabricated many of the painted marks in those chambers. For me it is not one single piece of evidence that I think condemns Vyse but rather the sheer weight of evidence that brings me to my own conclusion. Others, naturally, are perfectly free to take a different view though I would hope it is one based on facts and not just fuzzy feelings.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

There is even evidence that Da Vinci may have painted one of the "mystery Bowls" in Campbell's chamber.
Lost a lot of history during the dark ages.

Originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Hooke: The “mainstream” view is that the marks in the relieving chambers were connected with labour organisation, put in place by scribes attached to the ˤprw (crews) - as explained, in detail, in the Roth work to which I linked previously.

SC: Yes, by various gangs of workers at the quarries. Which is what I said.

But not what Roth said and not the current “mainstream” view. Not at the quarries - as explained, in detail, in the work to which I linked previously.

Hooke: You complain that the "old hieratic inscriptions" are "crude:"

SC: It’s not a complaint. It’s an observation made from some photos of some of the marks and various representations of them drawn by others. They are roughly painted marks with red ochre paint with many of them illegible. They are not pristine painted hieroglyphics that we see in later Egyptian tombs. So describing these painted marks as “crudely painted” is not a complaint but a perfectly reasonable description of them. Why you would think otherwise is odd.

On the contrary, it's clear that you mentioned the "crudity" of the inscriptions as if in some unspecified way it confirmed their allegedly "unofficial" status - whereas all indications are that they represent the official system of organising labour on site, as we see from their spatial organisation, as explained by Roth (whose work you have failed to understand, as we see in your book).

Hooke: ... but this just goes to show how little you understand even now of what you pronounce on with would-be expertise.

SC: Really? Do explain.

You really need it explaining that "crudity" is what we may expect of cursive inscriptions? What are we to make of your pronouncements on hieratic, if this has escaped you?

Hooke: As for your "entire book full of supporting evidence": you appear to have forgotten that, in that book, you are nowhere near as confident in your conclusions as you are here.

SC: In my book (and subsequent articles), I merely present anomalies that I (and others) have observed in various items of evidence and leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion based on the evidence presented. Which I consider to be the right approach. My personal opinion (which I have expressed many times elsewhere) is that there are simply too many anomalies in the available evidence to draw any conclusion other than Vyse (and his assistants) fabricated many of the painted marks in those chambers. For me it is not one single piece of evidence that I think condemns Vyse but rather the sheer weight of evidence that brings me to my own conclusion. Others, naturally, are perfectly free to take a different view though I would hope it is one based on facts and not just fuzzy feelings.

Having read the book and articles, I find it hard to take this assertion seriously. On the contrary, you bend over backwards to make into anomalies things which aren't.

a reply to: Hooke

Hermione: The “mainstream” view is that the marks in the relieving chambers were connected with labour organisation, put in place by scribes attached to the ˤprw (crews) - as explained, in detail, in the Roth work to which I linked previously.

SC: Yes, by various gangs of workers at the quarries. Which is what I said.

Hermione: But not what Roth said and not the current “mainstream” view. Not at the quarries - as explained, in detail, in the work to which I linked previously.

SC: They’re called “quarry marks” for a reason and that reason (according to many Egyptologists and Roth's opinion notwithstanding) is because it is believed they were placed onto the blocks by the work crews at the quarries. Has Roth changed the minds of all those Egyptologists working today? Personally I don’t actually care if she has or hasn’t. And I don't actually care all that much if these marks were painted onto the blocks at the quarries or at some point during transportation. But what is clear to me is that many of these marks we observe in the Vyse Chambers of the Great Pyramid were painted in-situ – some were even removed by the fraudsters. Thus, whatever point you think you are trying to make here, it seems to me to be nothing more than a distraction.

Hermione: You complain that the "old hieratic inscriptions" are "crude:"

SC: It’s not a complaint. It’s an observation made from some photos of some of the marks and various representations of them drawn by others. They are roughly painted marks with red ochre paint with many of them illegible. They are not pristine painted hieroglyphics that we see in later Egyptian tombs. So describing these painted marks as “crudely painted” is not a complaint but a perfectly reasonable description of them. Why you would think otherwise is odd.

Hermione: On the contrary, it's clear that you mentioned the "crudity" of the inscriptions as if in some unspecified way it confirmed their allegedly "unofficial" status - whereas all indications are that they represent the official system of organising labour on site, as we see from their spatial organisation, as explained by Roth (whose work you have failed to understand, as we see in your book).

SC: "as if" - is YOUR opinion and bears no relation to what I actually meant. “crudity” as in roughly painted. Do you dispute these marks are roughly painted?

“unofficial” as in they were not sanctioned by the king or his priests as decorative inscriptions or spells to recite (as in the Pyramid Texts). Or are you saying these crudely painted marks in these Vyse Chambers were officially sanctioned by the king or his priests as some form of decorative inscriptions?

Hermione: ... but this just goes to show how little you understand even now of what you pronounce on with would-be expertise.

SC: Really? Do explain.

Hermione: You really need it explaining that "crudity" is what we may expect of cursive inscriptions? What are we to make of your pronouncements on hieratic, if this has escaped you?

SC: I wasn't questioning anything about the crudity of the painted marks - you are. I stated as fact that these marks have been crudely painted (i.e. roughly painted). Again - do you dispute that?

Hermione: As for your "entire book full of supporting evidence": you appear to have forgotten that, in that book, you are nowhere near as confident in your conclusions as you are here.

SC: In my book (and subsequent articles), I merely present anomalies that I (and others) have observed in various items of evidence and leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion based on the evidence presented. Which I consider to be the right approach. My personal opinion (which I have expressed many times elsewhere) is that there are simply too many anomalies in the available evidence to draw any conclusion other than Vyse (and his assistants) fabricated many of the painted marks in those chambers. For me it is not one single piece of evidence that I think condemns Vyse but rather the sheer weight of evidence that brings me to my own conclusion. Others, naturally, are perfectly free to take a different view though I would hope it is one based on facts and not just fuzzy feelings.

Hermione: Having read the book and articles, I find it hard to take this assertion seriously. On the contrary, you bend over backwards to make into anomalies things which aren't.

SC: "..things which aren't..." is YOUR opinion - which you are perfectly entitled to, of course. However:

I say hieratic numbers that have been written against normal convention is anomalous.
I say that a painted sign going missing from Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber is anomalous.
I say that Vyse and Raven failing to see a single one of around 120 hieroglyphs on the walls of L.A. Chamber during their first visit (when they were able to find fewer marks almost immediately in near identical conditions in other chambers) is anomalous.
I say painting hieratic text from left-to-right is anomalous.
I say cross-hatchings missing in two versions of Vyse’s drawings only to appear in his third rendering (after having seen versions sent to him by Mr Perring from the Tomb of the Trades) is anomalous.
I say painting marks onto those walls IN-SITU upside-down/sideways is anomalous.

And those are just for starters.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I say painting marks onto those walls IN-SITU upside-down/sideways is anomalous.

You can see where the year symbol could have been evolved by the Greeks.
If this is some Kryptic fraud from the late 18th century you might start to wonder who and why?

a reply to: Hooke

Thank you, I'll check out those books when I get the chance.

I appreciate you answering my question.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Thanks Scott, I'll definitely grab a copy of that book when I get some cash. Hopefully I'll get this job at the Census really soon, they pay weekly and I really am falling behind currently. Just waiting on an email from them atm, and decided to check in here while I wait, haha.

This is actually super cool that you coincidentally wrote extensively on the very topic I was curious about (writings allegedly from within the GP).

A few questions:

Is the GP the only structure without many inscriptions?
Are there any other pyramids that lack internal inscriptions?

I can't help but agree with you on the point of "the text being left to right" being anomalous, and I see that as a massive clue that something isn't right with them.

Thank you for chiming in on this, I realize it is controversial but I'd like to learn more and I really appreciate the debates as I like to review both sides so that I can get a better idea of what I'm dealing with here.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Oh, and I have some research you compiled years ago that I'm going to use in an upcoming thread (if I ever get the time to compile and write/edit it). Hancock's website has proven very useful in digging around looking for obscure mathematical and astronomical facts.

So I really appreciate all the work you've done in putting a lot of this stuff together for us, it sure has made some great nights of reading and the digging process has been simplified for me to find specific pieces of info without having to google 50 times just to find something.