It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Investigating the "Lost 4th Pyramid" at Giza
page: 5share:
Originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke
No: they used to be called "quarry marks," because it was at one time believed that they were such.
Perhaps you would like to name some of the "many Egyptologists" who tell us that "it is believed" that these "marks" were made "at the quarries" (although this leaves vague the question of who is supposed to be doing the actual believing).
You shouldn't need to ask me this - and it is not my job to keep you up to date, against your active opposition. Your continued misrepresentation of current "mainstream" opinion is, rather, a commentary on the quality of your work. Your insistence that these are, literally, marks applied at the quarry - or rather that "the mainstream" says that they are - is a straw-man exercise. You see it as a contention open to attack and you have already attacked it. That's why you insist on it.
Anyway, as I said before: please name some of the "many Egyptologists" who tell us that "it is believed" that these "marks" were made "at the quarries."
That was rather the impression I gained.
Lepsius, explaining that they exhibit no ornamental function, describes them as scrawled in haste (Éclaircissements, 45).
Now you are merely trying to impose your own definition on the word. No one is saying that they were. I am saying that organising labour in the building of the king's pyramid was not done on the sly: it was entirely official; scarcely anything could be more so.
No, I am saying that they were "officially sanctioned by the king" and his functionaries in pursuit of a building project whose significance went far beyond the "decorative;" Prince Ankhaf (or Ankhaef), as Director, or Overseer, of the Royal Works, was in ultimate charge of it.
I doubt you know enough about the "normal conventions" of the time of Khufu to say this - but, if they do depart from such "normal conventions," why are you calling them hieratic at all?
It is entirely your contrived assertion that any such thing happened. Were you there? Thought not.
Given the physical and practical difficulties implicit in opening up and entering those chambers, that is an even more unrealistic and contrived assertion than the one just mentioned.
In Abusir II: Baugraffiti der Ptahschepses Mastaba can be found examples of "baugraffiti" which are written from left to right - and again, if this text "disobeys the rules of hieratic," why are you calling it hieratic? The corpus of surviving cursive writing of this period is sparse: again your warrant for standing in judgement over the evidence is dubious in the extreme.
Here you have lost most readers. I know what you are talking about and I will tell you this: the story you have concocted is a nonsense. You have misunderstood the text (of Operations) and you have misunderstood in particular Vyse's use of tense. You have also passed off Birch's transcription as epigraphy: a fundamental error. To regard it as a mistake would be generous: you really have no excuse, as epigraphy and photographs showing the real state of the matter are online and freely available: we see that the examples of hieroglyph Aa1 in the "Tomb of Trades" (G 6020, Mastaba of Iymery) are unlined. Your elaborate tale of Vyse getting the idea of "cross-hatching" from this source is a non-starter (as has been explained to you before, more than once).
Again, the "in situ" story is entirely your contrivance, "proven" in part by your own drawings in lieu of photographs.
What you imagine you are proving and what you actually have proven are quite different.
More information on these matters may be found here.
a reply to: Hooke
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 …
No: they used to be called "quarry marks," because it was at one time believed that they were such.
Perhaps you would like to name some of the "many Egyptologists" who tell us that "it is believed" that these "marks" were made "at the quarries" (although this leaves vague the question of who is supposed to be doing the actual believing).
SC: Has Roth changed the minds of all those Egyptologists working today?
You shouldn't need to ask me this - and it is not my job to keep you up to date, against your active opposition. Your continued misrepresentation of current "mainstream" opinion is, rather, a commentary on the quality of your work. Your insistence that these are, literally, marks applied at the quarry - or rather that "the mainstream" says that they are - is a straw-man exercise. You see it as a contention open to attack and you have already attacked it. That's why you insist on it.
Anyway, as I said before: please name some of the "many Egyptologists" who tell us that "it is believed" that these "marks" were made "at the quarries."
SC: Personally I don’t actually care …
That was rather the impression I gained.
SC: Do you dispute these marks are roughly painted?
Lepsius, explaining that they exhibit no ornamental function, describes them as scrawled in haste (Éclaircissements, 45).
SC: “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).
Now you are merely trying to impose your own definition on the word. No one is saying that they were. I am saying that organising labour in the building of the king's pyramid was not done on the sly: it was entirely official; scarcely anything could be more so.
SC: 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?
No, I am saying that they were "officially sanctioned by the king" and his functionaries in pursuit of a building project whose significance went far beyond the "decorative;" Prince Ankhaf (or Ankhaef), as Director, or Overseer, of the Royal Works, was in ultimate charge of it.
SC: I say hieratic numbers that have been written against normal convention is anomalous.
I doubt you know enough about the "normal conventions" of the time of Khufu to say this - but, if they do depart from such "normal conventions," why are you calling them hieratic at all?
SC: I say that a painted sign going missing from Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber is anomalous.
It is entirely your contrived assertion that any such thing happened. Were you there? Thought not.
SC: 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.
Given the physical and practical difficulties implicit in opening up and entering those chambers, that is an even more unrealistic and contrived assertion than the one just mentioned.
SC: I say painting hieratic text from left-to-right is anomalous.
In Abusir II: Baugraffiti der Ptahschepses Mastaba can be found examples of "baugraffiti" which are written from left to right - and again, if this text "disobeys the rules of hieratic," why are you calling it hieratic? The corpus of surviving cursive writing of this period is sparse: again your warrant for standing in judgement over the evidence is dubious in the extreme.
SC: 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.
Here you have lost most readers. I know what you are talking about and I will tell you this: the story you have concocted is a nonsense. You have misunderstood the text (of Operations) and you have misunderstood in particular Vyse's use of tense. You have also passed off Birch's transcription as epigraphy: a fundamental error. To regard it as a mistake would be generous: you really have no excuse, as epigraphy and photographs showing the real state of the matter are online and freely available: we see that the examples of hieroglyph Aa1 in the "Tomb of Trades" (G 6020, Mastaba of Iymery) are unlined. Your elaborate tale of Vyse getting the idea of "cross-hatching" from this source is a non-starter (as has been explained to you before, more than once).
SC: I say painting marks onto those walls IN-SITU upside-down/sideways is anomalous. .
Again, the "in situ" story is entirely your contrivance, "proven" in part by your own drawings in lieu of photographs.
What you imagine you are proving and what you actually have proven are quite different.
More information on these matters may be found here.
a reply to: muzzleflash
Hi Muzzleflash,
SC: These aren’t particularly easy questions to answer since it depends what you mean by “inscriptions”. I am presuming you mean ancient Egyptian inscriptions (there are inscriptions in the Subterranean Chamber of the GP from a number of historical periods including Greek and Roman) but then I wonder if you mean officially-sanctioned religious inscriptions or simple quarry marks or perhaps just mason’s marks?
And then there is the issue of provenance—were the inscriptions found in sealed chambers? Or were these chambers accessible for hundreds or even thousands of years whereby the inscriptions could have been placed within the structure at almost any time? This is why the painted markings in the Vyse Chambers of the GP are so important to Egyptologists because they were 'found' in entirely inaccessible, sealed chambers where gunpowder had to be used to gain access and to discover the painted markings therein.
Mainstream Egyptology takes the view that because these GP chambers had been sealed since the time of the GP’s construction (until AD 1837) then the painted marks therein must be contemporary with the monument’s construction thereby allowing Egyptology attribute and date the monument to the reign of Khufu whose various names were ‘found’ by Colonel Vyse in these chambers.
So, generally speaking, painted quarry marks (crew names and so on) along with mason’s marks have been evidenced within the Great Pyramid’s Vyse Chambers and nowhere else within this monument. There are some painted marks within the small cavities beyond ‘Gantenbrink’s Door’ of the Queen’s Chamber shafts although Egyptologists are still deliberating as to what these marks actually represent, the present theory being that they are numbers. There are no inscriptions of any other type thus far discovered within the GP.
As I said in a previous post, no ‘official inscriptions’ (i.e. religious texts) appear in any of the pyramids prior to the 5th Dynasty. There are some quarry marks/mason’s marks in the Mortuary Temple outside Menkaure’s pyramid (G3) at Giza and also at the pyramid of Meidum. As stated, it is at the end of the 5th Dynasty that we begin to find officially sanctioned religious texts within the pyramids e.g. Unas at Saqqara. There are also a considerable number of quarry marks and mason’s marks in some of the pyramids from this period, particularly at Abusir. I hope that helps answer your question.
SC: That’s what I like to hear—someone prepared to listen to both sides. It’s the only way to a fully informed opinion.
SC: Happy to help where I can.
Regards,
SC
Hi Muzzleflash,
MF: Is the GP the only structure without many inscriptions?
Are there any other pyramids that lack internal inscriptions?
SC: These aren’t particularly easy questions to answer since it depends what you mean by “inscriptions”. I am presuming you mean ancient Egyptian inscriptions (there are inscriptions in the Subterranean Chamber of the GP from a number of historical periods including Greek and Roman) but then I wonder if you mean officially-sanctioned religious inscriptions or simple quarry marks or perhaps just mason’s marks?
And then there is the issue of provenance—were the inscriptions found in sealed chambers? Or were these chambers accessible for hundreds or even thousands of years whereby the inscriptions could have been placed within the structure at almost any time? This is why the painted markings in the Vyse Chambers of the GP are so important to Egyptologists because they were 'found' in entirely inaccessible, sealed chambers where gunpowder had to be used to gain access and to discover the painted markings therein.
Mainstream Egyptology takes the view that because these GP chambers had been sealed since the time of the GP’s construction (until AD 1837) then the painted marks therein must be contemporary with the monument’s construction thereby allowing Egyptology attribute and date the monument to the reign of Khufu whose various names were ‘found’ by Colonel Vyse in these chambers.
So, generally speaking, painted quarry marks (crew names and so on) along with mason’s marks have been evidenced within the Great Pyramid’s Vyse Chambers and nowhere else within this monument. There are some painted marks within the small cavities beyond ‘Gantenbrink’s Door’ of the Queen’s Chamber shafts although Egyptologists are still deliberating as to what these marks actually represent, the present theory being that they are numbers. There are no inscriptions of any other type thus far discovered within the GP.
As I said in a previous post, no ‘official inscriptions’ (i.e. religious texts) appear in any of the pyramids prior to the 5th Dynasty. There are some quarry marks/mason’s marks in the Mortuary Temple outside Menkaure’s pyramid (G3) at Giza and also at the pyramid of Meidum. As stated, it is at the end of the 5th Dynasty that we begin to find officially sanctioned religious texts within the pyramids e.g. Unas at Saqqara. There are also a considerable number of quarry marks and mason’s marks in some of the pyramids from this period, particularly at Abusir. I hope that helps answer your question.
MF: ….I like to review both sides so that I can get a better idea of what I'm dealing with here.
SC: That’s what I like to hear—someone prepared to listen to both sides. It’s the only way to a fully informed opinion.
MF: 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.
SC: Happy to help where I can.
Regards,
SC
edit on 15/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Hooke
[snip - Irrelevant atom-splitting, pedantic guff about the meaning of a word].
SC: Ah – now we get to the meat of it. First of all I said “old hieratic” in at least one of my posts. But yes, they have variously been described as old or early hieratic or cursive script and even linear hieroglyphic. So go on then—since you imply your knowledge is superior to mine on this, explain to the Forum here why those numbers on the roof blocks have been written left-to-right when, as you must well know, hieratic script is written right-to-left? (Yes, we know there is a single freak example in Abusir of one small line of hieratic being written left-to-right– even Goedicke comments on the one example)? So, let’s have you explain it with a convincing argument. On you go, Hermione. The floor is yours.
SC: Contrived my bahookie! And THAT is the best you can offer—‘you weren’t there’? Hermione, you do know that most detectives generally aren’t present at the scene of crimes when they occur and yet they are able to:
a) detect that a crime was committed and
b) can often go on to find evidence to nail the perpetrators.
You are aware that’s how evidence works—surely?
Hermione, just like any detective today, I don’t need to have been there so just STOP with that nonsense. The criminals may well be long gone but the evidence they left behind ‘speaks’ of their crime. Now, address the issue properly and give the Forum here a convincing explanation why an anomalous sign (anomalous here because it was the only sign on this block orientated 180° to all the others, drawn by Perring) also then becomes the only sign to have vanished from those chambers? Why did it vanish, Hermione? Let’s hear it—once more, the floor is yours.
SC: Saying it’s “contrived” won’t actually make it so, Hermione. That is just your usual dodge because you have no convincing answer to this question. Vyse had no issues seeing much fewer marks on the walls of the lower chambers which he, undoubtedly, would have been observing with similar lighting conditions. We know he could see the difference in the condition of the walls in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber. He and Raven were able to take measurements during this first visit to this chamber thus were clearly able to see their measuring rods and write the measurements down. They could see quite well, Hermione. And yet both of them failed to observe around 120 painted marks on the walls. Once again, Hermione, stop dodging the question and present the board here with a convincing counter-argument. How can this be reasonably explained? Let’s hear it. The floor is yours.
SC: Already touched on above. One swallow a summer does not make, Hermione. A single inscription from how many tens or hundreds of thousands of lines of inscriptions? Give the board here a list of scholars who say hieratic writing should be written from left-to-right? Let’s have your list. You won’t find such a list, Hermione, because, as you well know, old/early hieratic script is written right-to-left. What you are basically wanting us to believe here is that, while every other piece of old hieratic script in the Vyse Chambers has been written right-to-left, suddenly the scribes decide to change direction for painting all the numbers, writing them left-to-right.
Aye, sure they did.
Simply on the balance of probability your clinging to a single left-to-right hieratic inscription is nothing but utter desperation and thus, unless you can offer something considerably more substantial, I think we can safely dispel this ‘explanation’ as bunk. A simpler explanation is that the scribe who wrote that single line was actually copying (in cursive form) a line of hieroglyphs that had been written left-to-right (as hieroglyphs can). Goedicke notes this one exception. Why didn’t Goedicke recognize the Campbell’s Chamber ‘examples’ as other exceptions, Hermione? Because they’re not. Because they’re fake.
SC: “Concocted”, “contrived” –it’s always that with you, isn’t it. When will you ever actually offer the Forum a genuine, compelling counter-argument? Anyone can scream “Mmmwwaaaahhh - concocted!” “Mmmwwaaaahhh - contrived!” But that’s not a convincing answer. Yes, I have seen photographs of some of the Khufu cartouches in that tomb whereby there are no cross-hatchings within the Khufu Aa1 sign. However, I have yet to see photographic evidence of the actual inscription (below). Why would the lithographer place lines in the disk (Aa1 sign) of the Khufu cartouche (below) if those lines weren’t actually present in the original source drawing? So, prove your point. Present to me a photograph of this inscription from the ToTT that shows the absence of the lines in the Khufu cartouche of these particular inscriptions.
More----->
[snip - Irrelevant atom-splitting, pedantic guff about the meaning of a word].
SC: I say hieratic numbers that have been written against normal convention is anomalous.
H: I doubt you know enough about the "normal conventions" of the time of Khufu to say this - but, if they do depart from such "normal conventions," why are you calling them hieratic at all?
SC: Ah – now we get to the meat of it. First of all I said “old hieratic” in at least one of my posts. But yes, they have variously been described as old or early hieratic or cursive script and even linear hieroglyphic. So go on then—since you imply your knowledge is superior to mine on this, explain to the Forum here why those numbers on the roof blocks have been written left-to-right when, as you must well know, hieratic script is written right-to-left? (Yes, we know there is a single freak example in Abusir of one small line of hieratic being written left-to-right– even Goedicke comments on the one example)? So, let’s have you explain it with a convincing argument. On you go, Hermione. The floor is yours.
SC: I say that a painted sign going missing from Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber is anomalous.
H: It is entirely your contrived assertion that any such thing happened. Were you there? Thought not.
SC: Contrived my bahookie! And THAT is the best you can offer—‘you weren’t there’? Hermione, you do know that most detectives generally aren’t present at the scene of crimes when they occur and yet they are able to:
a) detect that a crime was committed and
b) can often go on to find evidence to nail the perpetrators.
You are aware that’s how evidence works—surely?
Hermione, just like any detective today, I don’t need to have been there so just STOP with that nonsense. The criminals may well be long gone but the evidence they left behind ‘speaks’ of their crime. Now, address the issue properly and give the Forum here a convincing explanation why an anomalous sign (anomalous here because it was the only sign on this block orientated 180° to all the others, drawn by Perring) also then becomes the only sign to have vanished from those chambers? Why did it vanish, Hermione? Let’s hear it—once more, the floor is yours.
SC: 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.
H: Given the physical and practical difficulties implicit in opening up and entering those chambers, that is an even more unrealistic and contrived assertion than the one just mentioned.
SC: Saying it’s “contrived” won’t actually make it so, Hermione. That is just your usual dodge because you have no convincing answer to this question. Vyse had no issues seeing much fewer marks on the walls of the lower chambers which he, undoubtedly, would have been observing with similar lighting conditions. We know he could see the difference in the condition of the walls in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber. He and Raven were able to take measurements during this first visit to this chamber thus were clearly able to see their measuring rods and write the measurements down. They could see quite well, Hermione. And yet both of them failed to observe around 120 painted marks on the walls. Once again, Hermione, stop dodging the question and present the board here with a convincing counter-argument. How can this be reasonably explained? Let’s hear it. The floor is yours.
SC: I say painting hieratic text from left-to-right is anomalous.
H: In Abusir II: Baugraffiti der Ptahschepses Mastaba can be found examples of "baugraffiti" which are written from left to right - and again, if this text "disobeys the rules of hieratic," why are you calling it hieratic? The corpus of surviving cursive writing of this period is sparse: again your warrant for standing in judgement over the evidence is dubious in the extreme.
SC: Already touched on above. One swallow a summer does not make, Hermione. A single inscription from how many tens or hundreds of thousands of lines of inscriptions? Give the board here a list of scholars who say hieratic writing should be written from left-to-right? Let’s have your list. You won’t find such a list, Hermione, because, as you well know, old/early hieratic script is written right-to-left. What you are basically wanting us to believe here is that, while every other piece of old hieratic script in the Vyse Chambers has been written right-to-left, suddenly the scribes decide to change direction for painting all the numbers, writing them left-to-right.
Aye, sure they did.
Simply on the balance of probability your clinging to a single left-to-right hieratic inscription is nothing but utter desperation and thus, unless you can offer something considerably more substantial, I think we can safely dispel this ‘explanation’ as bunk. A simpler explanation is that the scribe who wrote that single line was actually copying (in cursive form) a line of hieroglyphs that had been written left-to-right (as hieroglyphs can). Goedicke notes this one exception. Why didn’t Goedicke recognize the Campbell’s Chamber ‘examples’ as other exceptions, Hermione? Because they’re not. Because they’re fake.
SC: 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.
H: Here you have lost most readers. I know what you are talking about and I will tell you this: the story you have concocted is a nonsense. You have misunderstood the text (of Operations) and you have misunderstood in particular Vyse's use of tense. You have also passed off Birch's transcription as epigraphy: a fundamental error. To regard it as a mistake would be generous: you really have no excuse, as epigraphy and photographs showing the real state of the matter are online and freely available: we see that the examples of hieroglyph Aa1 in the "Tomb of Trades" (G 6020, Mastaba of Iymery) are unlined. Your elaborate tale of Vyse getting the idea of "cross-hatching" from this source is a non-starter (as has been explained to you before, more than once).
SC: “Concocted”, “contrived” –it’s always that with you, isn’t it. When will you ever actually offer the Forum a genuine, compelling counter-argument? Anyone can scream “Mmmwwaaaahhh - concocted!” “Mmmwwaaaahhh - contrived!” But that’s not a convincing answer. Yes, I have seen photographs of some of the Khufu cartouches in that tomb whereby there are no cross-hatchings within the Khufu Aa1 sign. However, I have yet to see photographic evidence of the actual inscription (below). Why would the lithographer place lines in the disk (Aa1 sign) of the Khufu cartouche (below) if those lines weren’t actually present in the original source drawing? So, prove your point. Present to me a photograph of this inscription from the ToTT that shows the absence of the lines in the Khufu cartouche of these particular inscriptions.
More----->
edit on 15/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Hooke
....Continued.
SC: That word “contrivance” again. Why can’t you just stop knee-jerking every time a piece of anomalous evidence is presented to you and, instead, attempt to consider such evidence fairly and reasonably?
The “in-situ” nature of these (upside-down/sideways) marks has been proven by a number of pieces of evidence. Jon Snape shows an overlap of paint in the Khufu cartouche which indicates this hieratic cartouche was painted left-to-right and yet all the characters therein face to the right indicating the start of the text is at the right. The simplest way to explain this anomaly is that the cartouche was not painted left-to-right OR right-to-left but rather top-to-bottom (sideways to give the illusion of having been painted outwith the chamber). The second is the gang marks on the roof block to the right of the Khufu crew name in the corner of Campbell’s Chamber. These have been painted onto a layer of plaster (confirmed by Gorlitz and Erdmann chemical analysis). You don’t plaster a stone block before setting it into place (unless you’re sliding it into place through lime slurry in which case any marks would be smeared) thus these painted marks ON TOP of the plaster must then have been painted (sideways) onto the block with the block in-situ and after the plaster had dried. Which makes little sense since it would be far simpler for an AE scribe to simply paint the marks onto the block upright. There is other evidence in this regard but that shall suffice for the moment.
SC: And your knee-jerk rejection won’t make this evidence (and much more besides) magically go away. You need to engage—properly. Better still, present your own evidence that proves the marks in these chambers are authentic. Do that and this debate ends. Do it not and it will rumble on for many years to come. Of that you can be certain of.
EDIT to add: On the question of my referring the painted marks in the Vyse Chambers as "quarry marks", this from yourself only just under six years ago:
And only 3 years ago this from you:
You have, yourself, only recently refrained from referring to these marks as "quarry marks".
SC
....Continued.
SC: I say painting marks onto those walls IN-SITU upside-down/sideways is anomalous. .
H: Again, the "in situ" story is entirely your contrivance, "proven" in part by your own drawings in lieu of photographs.
SC: That word “contrivance” again. Why can’t you just stop knee-jerking every time a piece of anomalous evidence is presented to you and, instead, attempt to consider such evidence fairly and reasonably?
The “in-situ” nature of these (upside-down/sideways) marks has been proven by a number of pieces of evidence. Jon Snape shows an overlap of paint in the Khufu cartouche which indicates this hieratic cartouche was painted left-to-right and yet all the characters therein face to the right indicating the start of the text is at the right. The simplest way to explain this anomaly is that the cartouche was not painted left-to-right OR right-to-left but rather top-to-bottom (sideways to give the illusion of having been painted outwith the chamber). The second is the gang marks on the roof block to the right of the Khufu crew name in the corner of Campbell’s Chamber. These have been painted onto a layer of plaster (confirmed by Gorlitz and Erdmann chemical analysis). You don’t plaster a stone block before setting it into place (unless you’re sliding it into place through lime slurry in which case any marks would be smeared) thus these painted marks ON TOP of the plaster must then have been painted (sideways) onto the block with the block in-situ and after the plaster had dried. Which makes little sense since it would be far simpler for an AE scribe to simply paint the marks onto the block upright. There is other evidence in this regard but that shall suffice for the moment.
H: What you imagine you are proving and what you actually have proven are quite different.
SC: And your knee-jerk rejection won’t make this evidence (and much more besides) magically go away. You need to engage—properly. Better still, present your own evidence that proves the marks in these chambers are authentic. Do that and this debate ends. Do it not and it will rumble on for many years to come. Of that you can be certain of.
EDIT to add: On the question of my referring the painted marks in the Vyse Chambers as "quarry marks", this from yourself only just under six years ago:
"The question you raise - about individual and social morality, and whether there are some values that should transcend accepted contemporary mores - is an important one. But it's of limited applicability to the particular case of Vyse and the quarry marks." - from here
And only 3 years ago this from you:
"As we know, examples of quarry marks incorporating the Khufu cartouche were discovered on blocks sealing the entrances to galleries G6, G2 and G17 (4)." from here.
You have, yourself, only recently refrained from referring to these marks as "quarry marks".
SC
edit on 15/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)
edit on 15/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason
given)
Has anyone thought of the exploding pyramid 8km away from Giza?
The Pyramid of Djedefre. Possibly relating to the Egyptian magician Djedi, most likely not
But this may be the OP's missing pyramid.
The Pyramid of Djedefre. Possibly relating to the Egyptian magician Djedi, most likely not
But this may be the OP's missing pyramid.
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
deleted boring nonsense
Yes you're well known biased opinion that makes you think you have a right to hijack this thread to discuss YOUR pyramid ideas.
Biased indeed. Oh, remember I informed you some time ago - you aren't worth talking too. Just a reminder.
Hey its been114 days since you 'hosted' your sub-forum.....LOL
www.abovetopsecret.com...
a reply to: Hanslune
Hey that's not fair, I'm learning a lot and like to hear points of view from everyone. I don't mind disagreement, the process can be very informative and valuable.
Try not to get too personal when disagreeing with others, the first rule of debate is to avoid attacking the person and stay focused on the topic.
Y'all didn't hijack the thread, y'all revived it and taught me a few things. It's fine.
Hey that's not fair, I'm learning a lot and like to hear points of view from everyone. I don't mind disagreement, the process can be very informative and valuable.
Try not to get too personal when disagreeing with others, the first rule of debate is to avoid attacking the person and stay focused on the topic.
Y'all didn't hijack the thread, y'all revived it and taught me a few things. It's fine.
originally posted by: Skyfox81
Has anyone thought of the exploding pyramid 8km away from Giza?
The Pyramid of Djedefre. Possibly relating to the Egyptian magician Djedi, most likely not
But this may be the OP's missing pyramid.
That's much too far away.
We are literally looking for the foundation of a missing pyramid only hundreds of feet away from the main complex at Giza.
It's gotta be under 1km if it exists at all...
a reply to: Scott Creighton
I just find it deeply problematic for the official story of Egypt that there aren't ornate reliefs or furnishings in at least this pyramid, the greatest accomplishment architecturally in human history.
It sure seems to open the door for dating it much older than it is currently.
They put so much work into this thing, and the mathematics and cosmological components are simply mind blowing and the geodesic precision is utterly baffling.
I'm not convinced of anything yet, per se, but I feel strongly the "Truth" to all this has not yet been vindicated.
Im open to all ideas to get to the bottom of it.
I just find it deeply problematic for the official story of Egypt that there aren't ornate reliefs or furnishings in at least this pyramid, the greatest accomplishment architecturally in human history.
It sure seems to open the door for dating it much older than it is currently.
They put so much work into this thing, and the mathematics and cosmological components are simply mind blowing and the geodesic precision is utterly baffling.
I'm not convinced of anything yet, per se, but I feel strongly the "Truth" to all this has not yet been vindicated.
Im open to all ideas to get to the bottom of it.
Originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke
I don’t know quite why you describe my response as “screaming,” when all I’m doing is stating the truth of the matter.
However, although you’ve ignored it in the past, I’ll go over the situation once again.
First of all, Birch states perfectly clearly that what you have illustrated here (reproducing selectively what appears in Operations II, 7-8, footnote) is a transcription, i.e., a written version of the hieroglyphic characters that actually appear in G 6020 (Operations II 8 [fn.]):
It’s obvious, even without this plain statement, that these cartoon-like characters (i.e., representations that are not wholly realistic, and are reproduced in woodcut) are not meant to be an epigraphic record: i.e., they are not what one would see in a photograph. The inclusion of the interlinear transliteration (in Coptic characters) and translation (in English) emphasises this point.
Here (as requested) are the photographs you didn't manage to find. I suggest you compare them closely with Birch's transcription:
G 6020 (1)
G 6020 (2)
Incidentally, why have you shown the transcription in a way that leaves the impression that it came from drawings by Perring – and this not just in one book, but in two?
The Secret Chamber of Osiris p. 124, fig. 6.4
and The Great Pyramid Hoax, p. 174, fig. 13.6.
In each case, you mention the drawings supposedly sent by Perring and then immediately reference the figure (reproducing in part Birch’s transcription) as if it were an illustration of same.
And this despite the question being brought to your attention even before the first of those books was published.
a reply to: Hooke
I don’t know quite why you describe my response as “screaming,” when all I’m doing is stating the truth of the matter.
However, although you’ve ignored it in the past, I’ll go over the situation once again.
First of all, Birch states perfectly clearly that what you have illustrated here (reproducing selectively what appears in Operations II, 7-8, footnote) is a transcription, i.e., a written version of the hieroglyphic characters that actually appear in G 6020 (Operations II 8 [fn.]):
The accompanying transcription and interlinear interpretation, reads from left to right, in accordance with the European manner, in order to make the translation plainer ...
It’s obvious, even without this plain statement, that these cartoon-like characters (i.e., representations that are not wholly realistic, and are reproduced in woodcut) are not meant to be an epigraphic record: i.e., they are not what one would see in a photograph. The inclusion of the interlinear transliteration (in Coptic characters) and translation (in English) emphasises this point.
SC: I have yet to see photographic evidence of the actual inscription …
Here (as requested) are the photographs you didn't manage to find. I suggest you compare them closely with Birch's transcription:
G 6020 (1)
G 6020 (2)
Incidentally, why have you shown the transcription in a way that leaves the impression that it came from drawings by Perring – and this not just in one book, but in two?
The Secret Chamber of Osiris p. 124, fig. 6.4
and The Great Pyramid Hoax, p. 174, fig. 13.6.
In each case, you mention the drawings supposedly sent by Perring and then immediately reference the figure (reproducing in part Birch’s transcription) as if it were an illustration of same.
And this despite the question being brought to your attention even before the first of those books was published.
a reply to: Hooke
SC: Referring to my research into this issue as “contrivances” and “concoctions” is NOT “the truth”. I present evidence based FACTS. For example – between the drawings of Perring and Hill (of the same group of chamber marks) one of the signs has vanished. That is NOT a “contrivance” or a “concoction” of mine – it is an OBSERVABLE FACT and one that needs explaining. The numbers in Campbell’s Chamber (when presented upright) have the numbers in the reverse order to normal convention. Every other hieratic number (above 10) you will ever see has the highest numerical value written to the right. That is the normal convention for writing hieratic numbers. (Yes, we know dates can be placed on their side but these are numbers here not dates as there is not a single solar disc in any of these number inscriptions to indicate that they are dates - as some have claimed). Again - that is NOT a “contrivance” or a “concoction” of mine – it is an OBSERVABLE FACT that the numbers in Campbell’s Chamber have been written contrary to normal AE hieratic convention and that needs explaining. I could go on but I’m sure you get the picture. FACTS are NOT “concoctions” or “contrivances”. FACTS are FACTS and FACTS are UNBIASED. Yes, my interpretation of these FACTS leads me to a conclusion that the anomalies that these facts present have come about as the result of fraudulent activity. If you have a better, more convincing explanation for these anomalies then the Forum, I'm sure, would be glad to hear it.
SC: On the subject of ignoring - it is noted that “the situation” your refer to is but one of the pieces of evidence I refer to in my earlier posts in this thread. It is noted that, thus far, you have completely ignored all of the other points of evidence I listed in those previous posts. You ignore them and merely respond to one point that you think you can use to put me on the back foot, to find a chink in my armour, so to speak. Alas, I think you’re about to be a tad disappointed because, evidently, abductive reasoning simply isn’t one of your strengths.
SC: Yes, I know that and have even referred to this myself in the past.
SC: The POINT, Hermione, is NOT how Birch has reassembled Perring’s drawing for the benefit of his western audience but rather that he has presented Perring’s cartouches of Khufu with striations in the disc!! THAT is the POINT here!
First of all, the cutter of these disks would, naturally, wish to make as good a reproduction as possible. They are unlikely in the extreme to gratuitously add in features (the disk striations) to these disks of their own accord. That’s the first point. The second point is IF, as you stated, these marks on this page of Operations was “reproduced in woodcut” then WHY would the creator of these Khufu disks place striations within the disks when it would obviously be much easier to reproduce a plain disk with NO striations? Why would the sign cutter give themselves extra difficulty in putting striations into the disk? Why?
The abductive reasoning here is that the cutter placed striations into the disk because the cutter was presented with a drawing (from Birch) with striations already present within the disks. And, as we know, Birch’s (reassembled) inscriptions were based on Perring’s originals from the Tomb of the Trades. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that Perring observed these striations within these Khufu cartouche disks somewhere in this tomb.
SC: Once again, Hermione, your abductive reasoning fails you. Those photos you present from Tomb of the Trades may NOT be the same inscriptions that Birch reassembled (from Perring). Look at your first image (below)|:
Notice how the left-hand register (in dashed blue box) – the signs in that register are in a serious state of disrepair and are mostly unrecognizable and, as such, if this was the inscription Perring copied then it is simply inconceivable that he could have reproduced clearly defined signs from this (as shown in Birch’s rendition below in blue dashed box). This suggests to me two possibilities:
a) This register has been extensively damaged since Perring observed it in 1837.
b) Perring did not copy this inscription with its damaged register at all but rather he copied a second (near identical) inscription from elsewhere in this tomb but one which DID have the striated disks within the Khufu cartouche.
As I’m sure you know, it is not uncommon to find duplicated text within a tomb and there are other Khufu cartouches elsewhere in this tomb. And if this is the case for this particular inscription, then that may also hold true for the other image/inscription you present (i.e. the second Birch rendition of the Khufu cartouche with striated disk might be found elsewhere in this tomb with striated disk). At the end of the day, the disk striations Birch presents still need explaining because,as I’ve said above, it would have been much easier to cut those wood blocks without the striations. The cutter cut them for a reason and the simplest reason is that they were present in Birch's drawing (based on Perring’s original source drawing, thus present elsewhere in this tomb).
More------>
H: I don’t know quite why you describe my response as “screaming,” when all I’m doing is stating the truth of the matter.
SC: Referring to my research into this issue as “contrivances” and “concoctions” is NOT “the truth”. I present evidence based FACTS. For example – between the drawings of Perring and Hill (of the same group of chamber marks) one of the signs has vanished. That is NOT a “contrivance” or a “concoction” of mine – it is an OBSERVABLE FACT and one that needs explaining. The numbers in Campbell’s Chamber (when presented upright) have the numbers in the reverse order to normal convention. Every other hieratic number (above 10) you will ever see has the highest numerical value written to the right. That is the normal convention for writing hieratic numbers. (Yes, we know dates can be placed on their side but these are numbers here not dates as there is not a single solar disc in any of these number inscriptions to indicate that they are dates - as some have claimed). Again - that is NOT a “contrivance” or a “concoction” of mine – it is an OBSERVABLE FACT that the numbers in Campbell’s Chamber have been written contrary to normal AE hieratic convention and that needs explaining. I could go on but I’m sure you get the picture. FACTS are NOT “concoctions” or “contrivances”. FACTS are FACTS and FACTS are UNBIASED. Yes, my interpretation of these FACTS leads me to a conclusion that the anomalies that these facts present have come about as the result of fraudulent activity. If you have a better, more convincing explanation for these anomalies then the Forum, I'm sure, would be glad to hear it.
H: However, although you’ve ignored it in the past, I’ll go over the situation once again.
SC: On the subject of ignoring - it is noted that “the situation” your refer to is but one of the pieces of evidence I refer to in my earlier posts in this thread. It is noted that, thus far, you have completely ignored all of the other points of evidence I listed in those previous posts. You ignore them and merely respond to one point that you think you can use to put me on the back foot, to find a chink in my armour, so to speak. Alas, I think you’re about to be a tad disappointed because, evidently, abductive reasoning simply isn’t one of your strengths.
H: First of all, Birch states perfectly clearly that what you have illustrated here (reproducing selectively what appears in Operations II, 7-8, footnote) is a transcription, i.e., a written version of the hieroglyphic characters that actually appear in G 6020 (Operations II 8 [fn.]):
The accompanying transcription and interlinear interpretation, reads from left to right, in accordance with the European manner, in order to make the translation plainer ...
SC: Yes, I know that and have even referred to this myself in the past.
H: It’s obvious, even without this plain statement, that these cartoon-like characters (i.e., representations that are not wholly realistic, and are reproduced in woodcut) are not meant to be an epigraphic record: i.e., they are not what one would see in a photograph. The inclusion of the interlinear transliteration (in Coptic characters) and translation (in English) emphasises this point.
SC: The POINT, Hermione, is NOT how Birch has reassembled Perring’s drawing for the benefit of his western audience but rather that he has presented Perring’s cartouches of Khufu with striations in the disc!! THAT is the POINT here!
First of all, the cutter of these disks would, naturally, wish to make as good a reproduction as possible. They are unlikely in the extreme to gratuitously add in features (the disk striations) to these disks of their own accord. That’s the first point. The second point is IF, as you stated, these marks on this page of Operations was “reproduced in woodcut” then WHY would the creator of these Khufu disks place striations within the disks when it would obviously be much easier to reproduce a plain disk with NO striations? Why would the sign cutter give themselves extra difficulty in putting striations into the disk? Why?
The abductive reasoning here is that the cutter placed striations into the disk because the cutter was presented with a drawing (from Birch) with striations already present within the disks. And, as we know, Birch’s (reassembled) inscriptions were based on Perring’s originals from the Tomb of the Trades. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that Perring observed these striations within these Khufu cartouche disks somewhere in this tomb.
SC: I have yet to see photographic evidence of the actual inscription …
H: Here (as requested) are the photographs you didn't manage to find. I suggest you compare them closely with Birch's transcription:
G 6020 (1)
G 6020 (2)
SC: Once again, Hermione, your abductive reasoning fails you. Those photos you present from Tomb of the Trades may NOT be the same inscriptions that Birch reassembled (from Perring). Look at your first image (below)|:
Notice how the left-hand register (in dashed blue box) – the signs in that register are in a serious state of disrepair and are mostly unrecognizable and, as such, if this was the inscription Perring copied then it is simply inconceivable that he could have reproduced clearly defined signs from this (as shown in Birch’s rendition below in blue dashed box). This suggests to me two possibilities:
a) This register has been extensively damaged since Perring observed it in 1837.
b) Perring did not copy this inscription with its damaged register at all but rather he copied a second (near identical) inscription from elsewhere in this tomb but one which DID have the striated disks within the Khufu cartouche.
As I’m sure you know, it is not uncommon to find duplicated text within a tomb and there are other Khufu cartouches elsewhere in this tomb. And if this is the case for this particular inscription, then that may also hold true for the other image/inscription you present (i.e. the second Birch rendition of the Khufu cartouche with striated disk might be found elsewhere in this tomb with striated disk). At the end of the day, the disk striations Birch presents still need explaining because,as I’ve said above, it would have been much easier to cut those wood blocks without the striations. The cutter cut them for a reason and the simplest reason is that they were present in Birch's drawing (based on Perring’s original source drawing, thus present elsewhere in this tomb).
More------>
edit on 17/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)
....continued.
SC: Because, Hermione, if you look more closely at the images I present in those books you will see I have drawn dashed boxes around every Khufu cartouche in the Birch rendition because it is these features of the inscription that interests me and which are relevant to this question and which I draw my readers to. If you then read the Figure text below each image in those books you will see I am specifically referring to these Khufu cartouches presented by Birch (via Perring) but, in particular, the striated disks because it is the striated disks that are central to this issue. Certainly it may have been helpful to my readers to explain in the text here that these were Birch’s reproductions of Perring’s originals but that hardly changes the point I am making about the striated nature of the cartouche disks. In any case, I DID give the source for the drawings in the Figure text for any reader that might have wished to follow up on this and fully familiarize themselves with every single detail.
SC: And if you wonder why your bringing this ‘question’ to my attention has been ignored by me, then simply read my response above.
At the end of the day, Hermione, this ‘question’ is but a side issue to the key question surrounding this entire issue. Even if it transpires that there are no Khufu cartouches with striated disks within TotT, it does not alter the central contradiction Vyse presents on his private journal page of 16th June, 1837. Allow me to run that key question by you once again and let’s see if we can get a convincing explanation from you to explain the contradiction.
Here is a photograph of the actual Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber:
Khufu Cartouche, © Dr Colette Dowall
In Dr Dowall’s photograph above we can clearly observe the striations within the disk of the Khufu cartouche. We can also observe the two parallel dots under the snake sign.
And here (below) we see the entry from Colonel Vyse’s private journal dated 16th June, 1837. As you can see there are two Khufu cartouches on this page, one two thirds down the page (centre) and the other in the bottom-left page margin.
Vyse tells us here that both drawings of the Khufu cartouches on this page are from Campbell’s Chamber (see zoomed image below). As you know there is only one full Khufu cartouche in this chamber that presents a disk and that is the cartouche in Dr Dowell’s image above.
So Hermione, given that there is only one full Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber, why does Vyse present on this page one cartouche whereby the disk has NO striations (centre page) and another cartouche which DOES present these striations (image below)?
Why does Vyse’s two Khufu cartouches on this page contradict each other?
Now, the two most common explanations for this contradiction are:
a) The centre page cartouche is just a rough sketch, hence why Vyse didn’t bother with the disk striations.
b) The disk in the centre page cartouche was too small to draw the lines.
Regarding (a) above – if this were just a “rough sketch” then why does Vyse bother to copy the tiny detail of the two dots under the snake sign?
Regarding (b) above – this is the second Khufu cartouche Vyse has drawn without the striations (he drew a similar one on 27th May and this also presents the two dots under the snake). If he needed more space to place striations in the disk then all he needed do was to draw a slightly larger disk (or even a bigger cartouche such as the one he finally drew in the bottom left margin of this page).
Why does Vyse place an ‘X’ above the two disks of the cartouches? If it’s just a rough sketch, does he really have to place such a ‘X’ mark above the disk?
Why is the disk in the bottom margin cartouche double-lined? It is the only disk on this page where the disk is drawn double outlined? Why?
Why is the isolated disk with the striations marked with a small cross-reference stroke, corresponding to the similar small stroke set against the disk in the margin cartouche? Why?
What is YOUR explanations for this contradiction on this page of Vyse’s private journal and what is YOUR explanation for the ‘X’ marks, the cross-reference strokes and the double-outlined disk?
Let’s hear it.
SC
H: Incidentally, why have you shown the transcription in a way that leaves the impression that it came from drawings by Perring – and this not just in one book, but in two?
The Secret Chamber of Osiris p. 124, fig. 6.4
and The Great Pyramid Hoax, p. 174, fig. 13.6.
In each case, you mention the drawings supposedly sent by Perring and then immediately reference the figure (reproducing in part Birch’s transcription) as if it were an illustration of same.
SC: Because, Hermione, if you look more closely at the images I present in those books you will see I have drawn dashed boxes around every Khufu cartouche in the Birch rendition because it is these features of the inscription that interests me and which are relevant to this question and which I draw my readers to. If you then read the Figure text below each image in those books you will see I am specifically referring to these Khufu cartouches presented by Birch (via Perring) but, in particular, the striated disks because it is the striated disks that are central to this issue. Certainly it may have been helpful to my readers to explain in the text here that these were Birch’s reproductions of Perring’s originals but that hardly changes the point I am making about the striated nature of the cartouche disks. In any case, I DID give the source for the drawings in the Figure text for any reader that might have wished to follow up on this and fully familiarize themselves with every single detail.
H: And this despite the question being brought to your attention even before the first of those books was published.
SC: And if you wonder why your bringing this ‘question’ to my attention has been ignored by me, then simply read my response above.
At the end of the day, Hermione, this ‘question’ is but a side issue to the key question surrounding this entire issue. Even if it transpires that there are no Khufu cartouches with striated disks within TotT, it does not alter the central contradiction Vyse presents on his private journal page of 16th June, 1837. Allow me to run that key question by you once again and let’s see if we can get a convincing explanation from you to explain the contradiction.
Here is a photograph of the actual Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber:
Khufu Cartouche, © Dr Colette Dowall
In Dr Dowall’s photograph above we can clearly observe the striations within the disk of the Khufu cartouche. We can also observe the two parallel dots under the snake sign.
And here (below) we see the entry from Colonel Vyse’s private journal dated 16th June, 1837. As you can see there are two Khufu cartouches on this page, one two thirds down the page (centre) and the other in the bottom-left page margin.
Vyse tells us here that both drawings of the Khufu cartouches on this page are from Campbell’s Chamber (see zoomed image below). As you know there is only one full Khufu cartouche in this chamber that presents a disk and that is the cartouche in Dr Dowell’s image above.
So Hermione, given that there is only one full Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber, why does Vyse present on this page one cartouche whereby the disk has NO striations (centre page) and another cartouche which DOES present these striations (image below)?
Why does Vyse’s two Khufu cartouches on this page contradict each other?
Now, the two most common explanations for this contradiction are:
a) The centre page cartouche is just a rough sketch, hence why Vyse didn’t bother with the disk striations.
b) The disk in the centre page cartouche was too small to draw the lines.
Regarding (a) above – if this were just a “rough sketch” then why does Vyse bother to copy the tiny detail of the two dots under the snake sign?
Regarding (b) above – this is the second Khufu cartouche Vyse has drawn without the striations (he drew a similar one on 27th May and this also presents the two dots under the snake). If he needed more space to place striations in the disk then all he needed do was to draw a slightly larger disk (or even a bigger cartouche such as the one he finally drew in the bottom left margin of this page).
Why does Vyse place an ‘X’ above the two disks of the cartouches? If it’s just a rough sketch, does he really have to place such a ‘X’ mark above the disk?
Why is the disk in the bottom margin cartouche double-lined? It is the only disk on this page where the disk is drawn double outlined? Why?
Why is the isolated disk with the striations marked with a small cross-reference stroke, corresponding to the similar small stroke set against the disk in the margin cartouche? Why?
What is YOUR explanations for this contradiction on this page of Vyse’s private journal and what is YOUR explanation for the ‘X’ marks, the cross-reference strokes and the double-outlined disk?
Let’s hear it.
SC
edit on 17/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke
Based on the evidence here, you don't understand the word "fact." On the contrary, what you present are tendentious interpretations which you then call "facts": "contrivances" and "concoctions" exactly.
Where and when? What I find - as referenced already - is people telling you so.
Moreover, in neither of your books is there a hint that the illustration is of Birch's transcription, and not of the drawings by Perring just mentioned.
The point - again - is that this is transcription. It is not the job of transcription to represent every quirky detail of the original. I could transcribe a letter in ascii or UTF-8: the transcription would tell us what was written (the message) in the letter - but nothing about the original handwriting.
Are you now going to tell us that these are realistic renditions of the “owl” hieroglyph?
Birch's cartoonish transcription plainly does not reproduce the original characters in accurate detail. But, as just stated, that is not what transcription is for. Reproduction in accurate detail is the job of the epigrapher; and epigraphy of this mastaba shows hieroglyph Aa1 unlined, in these inscriptions and in general. Your "may not be the same inscriptions" is the mark of utter desperation. The material is there, in Giza Mastabas 5: show me any other inscriptions which match - or are you merely "proposing" their existence?
Allow me to remind you that when “The Great Pyramid Hoax” was only a slideshow, you put this into it:
You said that: and you based upon it a tower-of-cards speculation about Vyse revising his plans and frantically editing his journal. It's for you to show that this is so: if you can’t, the tower of cards collapses.
This without even getting on to how you've conjured a non-event from a misunderstanding of tense …
a reply to: Hooke
SC: Referring to my research into this issue as “contrivances” and “concoctions” is NOT “the truth”. I present evidence based FACTS. ...
Based on the evidence here, you don't understand the word "fact." On the contrary, what you present are tendentious interpretations which you then call "facts": "contrivances" and "concoctions" exactly.
SC: Yes, I know that and have even referred to this myself in the past.
Where and when? What I find - as referenced already - is people telling you so.
Moreover, in neither of your books is there a hint that the illustration is of Birch's transcription, and not of the drawings by Perring just mentioned.
SC: The POINT, Hooke, is NOT how Birch has reassembled Perring’s drawing for the benefit of his western audience but rather that he has presented Perring’s cartouches of Khufu with striations in the disc!! THAT is the POINT here.
The point - again - is that this is transcription. It is not the job of transcription to represent every quirky detail of the original. I could transcribe a letter in ascii or UTF-8: the transcription would tell us what was written (the message) in the letter - but nothing about the original handwriting.
Are you now going to tell us that these are realistic renditions of the “owl” hieroglyph?
Birch's cartoonish transcription plainly does not reproduce the original characters in accurate detail. But, as just stated, that is not what transcription is for. Reproduction in accurate detail is the job of the epigrapher; and epigraphy of this mastaba shows hieroglyph Aa1 unlined, in these inscriptions and in general. Your "may not be the same inscriptions" is the mark of utter desperation. The material is there, in Giza Mastabas 5: show me any other inscriptions which match - or are you merely "proposing" their existence?
Allow me to remind you that when “The Great Pyramid Hoax” was only a slideshow, you put this into it:
The Khufu cartouches (plural) in the Tomb of the Trades actually have hatched lines in the discs, ...
You said that: and you based upon it a tower-of-cards speculation about Vyse revising his plans and frantically editing his journal. It's for you to show that this is so: if you can’t, the tower of cards collapses.
This without even getting on to how you've conjured a non-event from a misunderstanding of tense …
a reply to: Hooke
SC: The job would be to represent the original source material (i.e. Perring to Birch) as accurately as possible otherwise what the hell is the point of transcription in the first place? And why make life more difficult for yourself by cutting lines into these disks when, according to you, "It is not the job of transcription to represent every quirky detail of the original"? Why do that?
I'll tell you why. Because striations were presented to the block cutter by Birch because Birch almost certainly received such from Perring. That is why those striations are there - they're not some made up "quirky detail".
SC: No. The Birch inscription is evidently NOT THERE - at least, not all of it is observable in this particular wall inscription as you can plainly see from YOUR OWN image. And it won't be in your image no matter how much you try to insist that it is. A big chunk of that inscription you posted is an unrecognisable, fragmented mess; almost entirely unreadable let alone copyable. Which leaves open the distinct possibility that there are other examples of this inscription elsewhere in this tomb with the striated disks that were clear enough for Perring to read and copy (and pass onto Birch who then had them reproduced by his own cutter).
SC: You've a long, long way to go before you are even remotely anywhere near that. But who am I to get between someone and their delusion. And that delusion persists in your head because you point-blank refuse to address all of the other evidence presented to you in this thread. Which is telling indeed.
Now address the other evidence I have presented elsewhere in this thread and STOP IGNORING IT. What are you AFRAID OF?
SC
H: It is not the job of transcription to represent every quirky detail of the original.
SC: The job would be to represent the original source material (i.e. Perring to Birch) as accurately as possible otherwise what the hell is the point of transcription in the first place? And why make life more difficult for yourself by cutting lines into these disks when, according to you, "It is not the job of transcription to represent every quirky detail of the original"? Why do that?
I'll tell you why. Because striations were presented to the block cutter by Birch because Birch almost certainly received such from Perring. That is why those striations are there - they're not some made up "quirky detail".
H: Your "may not be the same inscriptions" is the mark of utter desperation. The material is there, in Giza Mastabas 5: show me any other inscriptions which match - or are you merely "proposing" their existence?
SC: No. The Birch inscription is evidently NOT THERE - at least, not all of it is observable in this particular wall inscription as you can plainly see from YOUR OWN image. And it won't be in your image no matter how much you try to insist that it is. A big chunk of that inscription you posted is an unrecognisable, fragmented mess; almost entirely unreadable let alone copyable. Which leaves open the distinct possibility that there are other examples of this inscription elsewhere in this tomb with the striated disks that were clear enough for Perring to read and copy (and pass onto Birch who then had them reproduced by his own cutter).
H: "...tower of cards collapses."
SC: You've a long, long way to go before you are even remotely anywhere near that. But who am I to get between someone and their delusion. And that delusion persists in your head because you point-blank refuse to address all of the other evidence presented to you in this thread. Which is telling indeed.
Now address the other evidence I have presented elsewhere in this thread and STOP IGNORING IT. What are you AFRAID OF?
SC
edit on 17/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)
edit on 17/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason
given)
originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Scott Creighton
I just find it deeply problematic for the official story of Egypt that there aren't ornate reliefs or furnishings in at least this pyramid, the greatest accomplishment architecturally in human history.
Pyramids didn't have internal decoration until 200 years later... but that the decoration was in the temple for everyone to see.
It sure seems to open the door for dating it much older than it is currently.
Not really. From evidence that's lately emerged, it appears that Khufu died in the summer of 2483 BC, just as stone for casing the pyramid was being transported to Giza.
They put so much work into this thing, and the mathematics and cosmological components are simply mind blowing and the geodesic precision is utterly baffling.
Factors influencing its placement include the presence of nearby sources of stone (the Mokattam Formation) available for quarrying, and the Nile itself, which, during its annual inundation, provided waterways for transporting raw materials.
a reply to: Hooke
If these pyramid shapes on this ostrich eggshell (below) are depicting the Giza three and the Nile then the Gizamids are a couple of thousand years older (at least) since this eggshell is around 7,000 years old.
Source.
SC
MuzzleFlash: : It sure seems to open the door for dating it much older than it is currently.
Hermione: Not really. From evidence that's lately emerged, it appears that Khufu died in the summer of 2483 BC, just as stone for casing the pyramid was being transported to Giza.
If these pyramid shapes on this ostrich eggshell (below) are depicting the Giza three and the Nile then the Gizamids are a couple of thousand years older (at least) since this eggshell is around 7,000 years old.
Source.
SC
edit on 18/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke
...
I wrote "examples." Plural.
And again, why did I have to tell you this? Why have you not consulted this source yourself? Not Goedicke: Verner.
It's not as if no one has mentioned it to you before.
On hieratic allow me to remind you of this:
I suggest also that you look at Ilona Regulski, The beginning of Hieratic Writing in Egypt. From the abstract:
It’s important not to confuse prescriptivism with descriptivism. Present day scholars avoid being overly prescriptive on the question.
a reply to: Hooke
...
SC: Already touched on above. One swallow a summer does not make, Hooke. A single inscription from how many tens or hundreds of thousands of lines of inscriptions? Give the board here a list of scholars who say hieratic writing should be written from left-to-right? Let’s have your list. You won’t find such a list, Hooke, because, as you well know, old/early hieratic script is written right-to-left. What you are basically wanting us to believe here is that, while every other piece of old hieratic script in the Vyse Chambers has been written right-to-left, suddenly the scribes decide to change direction for painting all the numbers, writing them left-to-right.
Aye, sure they did.
Simply on the balance of probability your clinging to a single left-to-right hieratic inscription is nothing but utter desperation and thus, unless you can offer something considerably more substantial, I think we can safely dispel this ‘explanation’ as bunk. A simpler explanation is that the scribe who wrote that single line was actually copying (in cursive form) a line of hieroglyphs that had been written left-to-right (as hieroglyphs can). Goedicke notes this one exception. Why didn’t Goedicke recognize the Campbell’s Chamber ‘examples’ as other exceptions, Hooke? Because they’re not. Because they’re fake.
I wrote "examples." Plural.
And again, why did I have to tell you this? Why have you not consulted this source yourself? Not Goedicke: Verner.
It's not as if no one has mentioned it to you before.
On hieratic allow me to remind you of this:
The hieratic script has never been studied systematically regarding its peculiarities in abbreviations, orthography, functions or historical development, nor in comparison with cursive and monumental hieroglyphs as well as Demotic signs. ...
I suggest also that you look at Ilona Regulski, The beginning of Hieratic Writing in Egypt. From the abstract:
For lack of another designation, early inscriptions executed with reed-pen and ink are often designated as early hieratic writing. It is certain that cursive forms of hieroglyphs began to appear at a very early date, but one may wonder to what extent Early Dynastic ink-written entries display the features that were to become typical of the later hieratic script, such as simplification and abbreviation. ...
It’s important not to confuse prescriptivism with descriptivism. Present day scholars avoid being overly prescriptive on the question.
edit on 18-2-2020 by Hooke because: punctuation
a reply to: Hooke
Ah - when the facts no longer fit, try shifting the goal posts. A typical ploy by Egyptapologists.
SC: Then you'll be able to show the Forum here examples of hieratic numbers (above 10) outwith the Vyse Chambers that have the higher numerals to the left. Let's see them.
Let's see what the scholars say about hieratic writing:
But yeah - sure. You know better.
SC
Ah - when the facts no longer fit, try shifting the goal posts. A typical ploy by Egyptapologists.
Hermione: It’s important not to confuse prescriptivism with descriptivism. Present day scholars avoid being overly prescriptive on the question.
SC: Then you'll be able to show the Forum here examples of hieratic numbers (above 10) outwith the Vyse Chambers that have the higher numerals to the left. Let's see them.
Let's see what the scholars say about hieratic writing:
“Hieratic was always read from right to left. Originally, hieratic was written in columns, but beginning in the 12th Dynasty this practice was abandoned in favor of horizontal lines.”
Kathryn A. Bard, Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (2005), p.276
“Hieroglyphs could be written from right to left (or vice versa) ... In hieratic, however, the direction of writing was always from right to left.”
Ann Rosalie David, Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt (1999), p. 194.
“Like cursive hieroglyphs, hieratic was written with a reed brush and ink, usually on papyrus. It is always written from right to left.”
James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs (2010), p.6.
But yeah - sure. You know better.
SC
edit on 18/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)
edit on 18/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason
given)
Scott,
You said in past discussions that you weren't going to recapitulate the content of HOAX - and yet this is exactly what you seem to be doing now.
Much of what you write here has already been dealt with, on this board and elsewhere. For example, your nonsense about "no disk striations" was definitively trounced on GHMB by Dr. Troglodyte.
By the way, do you have permission to use Colette Dowell's image? You must be aware that she is particular about this, if only from the way she has marked it up.
On the matter of the so-called 'X' marks:
Allow me, then, to lose no further time in responding.
All of this is a figment of your contrivance, as you have already been told. Take, for example, that (supposed) 'X' in Vyse’s field notes, which is merely a cross-reference mark, and not the evidence of fraudulent intent that you seem to imagine.
I am sure you will understand my reluctance to spend time copying and pasting what you've evaded already.
You said in past discussions that you weren't going to recapitulate the content of HOAX - and yet this is exactly what you seem to be doing now.
Much of what you write here has already been dealt with, on this board and elsewhere. For example, your nonsense about "no disk striations" was definitively trounced on GHMB by Dr. Troglodyte.
By the way, do you have permission to use Colette Dowell's image? You must be aware that she is particular about this, if only from the way she has marked it up.
On the matter of the so-called 'X' marks:
SC: What is YOUR explanations for this contradiction on this page of Vyse’s private journal and what is YOUR explanation for the ‘X’ marks, the cross-reference strokes and the double-outlined disk?
Let’s hear it.
Allow me, then, to lose no further time in responding.
All of this is a figment of your contrivance, as you have already been told. Take, for example, that (supposed) 'X' in Vyse’s field notes, which is merely a cross-reference mark, and not the evidence of fraudulent intent that you seem to imagine.
I am sure you will understand my reluctance to spend time copying and pasting what you've evaded already.
a reply to: Hooke
SC: These particular issues presently under discussion are already in the public domain and have been for quite some time – some even before HOAX was published. So—what’s your point? I discuss what I feel like discussing when I feel like discussing it. I don’t think there are any rules around that.
SC: He did no such thing (well perhaps but only in your head). You rather conveniently leave out the responses to Dr T. Here’s what Jon Snape had to say to Dr T:
... and my own reply to Dr T (below):
SC: I don’t actually discount that these two marks cross-reference each other because BOTH disks in BOTH Campbell’s Chamber cartouches had no striations because that was how the disk in this Khufu cartouche initially was in Campbell’s Chamber. So yes – they cross-reference each other but they do so because they were BOTH WRONG. That is why, Hermione, the striated disc in the margin is, imo, the only disk on that page with a double outline. It is not actually a double outline but rather a disc placed within a disc. The outer disc was drawn first and was, initially, blank. Vyse then goes to TotT and observes (somewhere) a Khufu inscription with the striated disk which he draws on the page margin. He then places another circle within the blank circle, draws the lines within it and places a cross-reference stroke mark between this change to the lower Khufu cartouche and the striated disk.
But that is my explanation for all these marks. What’s yours? Why is Vyse cross-referencing these two disks on this page? What’s the purpose of the reference strokes?
The simple truth of the matter here, Hermione, is that there is no logical reason why Vyse would have dawn that centre page Khufu cartouche without the striations when he was careful enough to include the 2 tiny dots below the snake. He was being accurate with this cartouche because he wanted to take it with him to the Tomb of the Trades for a comparative study of the Khufu cartouches he knew to be there. And when you wish to make a comparative study of a cartouche with another group of similar cartouches, the one thing you would absolutely ensure is that your original cartouche is exactly correct in every detail. It entirely defeats the purpose of the comparative study if you don’t get your original cartouche correct in every detail. The striations are not present in his cartouche at that time because, at that time, he didn't know they were needed. He only discovered that they were after his visit to the TotT and that is why we see all these edit marks on this page of his private journal.
SC: You won’t be surprised to hear that I wholeheartedly disagree. And I say that because it is not just one anomaly we find with Vyse and these chambers—there are numerous anomalies and it is the sheer weight of them together that convinces me that Vyse (with a couple of his closest assistants) perpetrated fraud in those chambers.
SC: Go back through this thread—carefully—and you will see that it is actually YOU that has evaded questions I have asked of you, and now merely claiming they’ve already been answered elsewhere which is just a cop out on your part because NO ONE has offered any convincing counter-argument to the many points I raise. Oh yes—and with many more to come in my next book, due out later this year. I don’t think you’re going to like it very much.
At the end of the day, Hermione, we’re never going to agree on this—for sure. But as I’ve always said—all you have to do is present incontrovertible proof that the marks in those chambers are authentic and you will have falsified my argument.
SC
H: You said in past discussions that you weren't going to recapitulate the content of HOAX - and yet this is exactly what you seem to be doing now.
SC: These particular issues presently under discussion are already in the public domain and have been for quite some time – some even before HOAX was published. So—what’s your point? I discuss what I feel like discussing when I feel like discussing it. I don’t think there are any rules around that.
H: Much of what you write here has already been dealt with, on this board and elsewhere. For example, your nonsense about "no disk striations" was definitively trounced on GHMB by Dr. Troglodyte.
SC: He did no such thing (well perhaps but only in your head). You rather conveniently leave out the responses to Dr T. Here’s what Jon Snape had to say to Dr T:
JS: I agree that they are "virtually" unrecognizable. But not actually unrecognizable..
Anyway I can do it no problem, 4mm circle with a nibbed pen.
Actually a BIC Biro seems to be the most difficult.. But still doable..
Try it Scott.. it's easy..(from here).
... and my own reply to Dr T (below):
SC: “Bottom line--if Vyse needed space to draw a larger disc in which to accommodate hatched lines, he could easily have found the space. The question is why didn't he? And why an unhatched disc also in his 27th May entry? The only time we observe the hatched disc cartouche of Khufu in Vyse's journal is at the bottom of the page in a margin long after he first 'discovered' it. Indeed, why should he even come back to this and be deliberating things three weeks after he supposedly discovered this cartouche in Campbell's?” (from here).
H: On the matter of the so-called 'X' marks:
SC: What is YOUR explanation for this contradiction on this page of Vyse’s private journal and what is YOUR explanation for the ‘X’ marks, the cross-reference strokes and the double-outlined disk?
Let’s hear it.
H: Allow me, then, to lose no further time in responding.
All of this is a figment of your contrivance, as you have already been told. Take, for example, that (supposed) 'X' in Vyse’s field notes, which is merely a cross-reference mark…
SC: I don’t actually discount that these two marks cross-reference each other because BOTH disks in BOTH Campbell’s Chamber cartouches had no striations because that was how the disk in this Khufu cartouche initially was in Campbell’s Chamber. So yes – they cross-reference each other but they do so because they were BOTH WRONG. That is why, Hermione, the striated disc in the margin is, imo, the only disk on that page with a double outline. It is not actually a double outline but rather a disc placed within a disc. The outer disc was drawn first and was, initially, blank. Vyse then goes to TotT and observes (somewhere) a Khufu inscription with the striated disk which he draws on the page margin. He then places another circle within the blank circle, draws the lines within it and places a cross-reference stroke mark between this change to the lower Khufu cartouche and the striated disk.
But that is my explanation for all these marks. What’s yours? Why is Vyse cross-referencing these two disks on this page? What’s the purpose of the reference strokes?
The simple truth of the matter here, Hermione, is that there is no logical reason why Vyse would have dawn that centre page Khufu cartouche without the striations when he was careful enough to include the 2 tiny dots below the snake. He was being accurate with this cartouche because he wanted to take it with him to the Tomb of the Trades for a comparative study of the Khufu cartouches he knew to be there. And when you wish to make a comparative study of a cartouche with another group of similar cartouches, the one thing you would absolutely ensure is that your original cartouche is exactly correct in every detail. It entirely defeats the purpose of the comparative study if you don’t get your original cartouche correct in every detail. The striations are not present in his cartouche at that time because, at that time, he didn't know they were needed. He only discovered that they were after his visit to the TotT and that is why we see all these edit marks on this page of his private journal.
H:…and not the evidence of fraudulent intent that you seem to imagine.
SC: You won’t be surprised to hear that I wholeheartedly disagree. And I say that because it is not just one anomaly we find with Vyse and these chambers—there are numerous anomalies and it is the sheer weight of them together that convinces me that Vyse (with a couple of his closest assistants) perpetrated fraud in those chambers.
H: I am sure you will understand my reluctance to spend time copying and pasting what you've evaded already.
SC: Go back through this thread—carefully—and you will see that it is actually YOU that has evaded questions I have asked of you, and now merely claiming they’ve already been answered elsewhere which is just a cop out on your part because NO ONE has offered any convincing counter-argument to the many points I raise. Oh yes—and with many more to come in my next book, due out later this year. I don’t think you’re going to like it very much.
At the end of the day, Hermione, we’re never going to agree on this—for sure. But as I’ve always said—all you have to do is present incontrovertible proof that the marks in those chambers are authentic and you will have falsified my argument.
SC
edit on 18/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)
edit on 18/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason
given)
new topics
-
'Mass Casualty event' - Attack at Christmas market in Germany
Mainstream News: 7 hours ago -
Search to Resume for MH 370
Disaster Conspiracies: 9 hours ago -
Sue Gray, Sir Keir Starmer's former Chief of Staff, Nominated for Peerage
Regional Politics: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
'Mass Casualty event' - Attack at Christmas market in Germany
Mainstream News: 7 hours ago, 25 flags -
Biden Nationalizes Another 50,000+ Student Loans as He Heads for the Exit
US Political Madness: 12 hours ago, 8 flags -
Search to Resume for MH 370
Disaster Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 4 flags -
Sue Gray, Sir Keir Starmer's former Chief of Staff, Nominated for Peerage
Regional Politics: 11 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
'Mass Casualty event' - Attack at Christmas market in Germany
Mainstream News • 76 • : Naftalin -
I have a friend. . .
General Chit Chat • 21 • : randomtangentsrme -
An Interesting Conversation with ChatGPT
Science & Technology • 25 • : Naftalin -
On Nov. 5th 2024 - AMERICANS Prevented the Complete Destruction of America from Within.
2024 Elections • 161 • : WeMustCare -
Can someone 'splain me like I'm 5. Blockchain?
Science & Technology • 92 • : cherokeetroy -
Drone Shooting Arrest - Walmart Involved
Mainstream News • 39 • : 777Vader -
Search to Resume for MH 370
Disaster Conspiracies • 6 • : charlyv -
Mood Music Part VI
Music • 3751 • : lilzazz -
Biden Nationalizes Another 50,000+ Student Loans as He Heads for the Exit
US Political Madness • 13 • : Connector -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3769 • : 777Vader