The Great Pyramid Of Giza And Why It Was Probably Not A Tomb

originally posted by: Hooke
No: the cartouche names of Khufu as found in the relieving chambers have been shown to fit into a scheme of labour organisation (see [url=https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/publications/saoc/saoc-48-egyptian-phyles-old-kingdom-evolution-system-social-organization]here, pgs. 125-7.

The style and color Khufu cartouche seems to be very consistent with the markings recently found on the opposite side of the "Gatenbrink Door," which obviously were not accessed from the time the door was put in place to the present.

That would further decrease the possibility that the Khufu cartouche was some kind of forgery.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Hanslune

LOLz I see you are up to your own tricks again. Peddling that deepstate history again. Lets define some clarity here.


Al-Maqrizi the medieval Egyptian historian states the pryamid was built by Saurid before the great flood. Thats Enoch.

You have zero empirical data to back up your claims. Simply conjecture.

And you read too much woo.

"Saurid" was the Arabic name for Khufu. "Idris" was what they called a character that parallels Enoch.

Khufu is well known under his Hellenized name Khêops or Cheops (/ˈkiːɒps/, KEE-ops; Greek: Χέοψ, by Diodorus and Herodotus) and less well known under another Hellenized name, Súphis (/ˈsuːfɪs/ SOO-fis; Greek: Σοῦφις, by Manetho).[5][10] A rare version of the name of Khufu, used by Josephus, is Sofe (/ˈsɒfi/ SOF-ee; Greek: Σόφε).[2] Arab historians, who wrote mystic stories about Khufu and the Giza pyramids, called him Saurid (Arabic: سوريد‎) or Salhuk (سلهوق).[14]

Wiki
And

ʾIdrīs (Arabic: إدريس‎) is an ancient prophet and patriarch mentioned in the Quran, whom Muslims believe was the second prophet after Adam.[1] Islamic tradition has unanimously identified Idris with the biblical Enoch,[2][3] although many Muslim scholars of the classical and medieval periods also held that Idris and Hermes Trismegistus were the same person.[4][5]

Wiki again

Harte

Originally posted by: [post=25001567]bloodymarvelous in answer to [post=24996652]Hanslune

Hanslune: The fringe has done well in convincing people that there is only ONE name of of the pharaoh in the relieving chambers.

Yet there are nine or eight (depending on how you count the partial ones), so count'm yourself. ...

bloodymarvelous: ... And these are all found in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber, right?

So if the interior granite was there long before the rest of the upper pyramid was constructed, there's no reason not to expect to see writing there.

The interior walls of the relieving chambers bear various painted inscriptions (dipinti), some of which are the names of aperu (work-crews). The names of the aperu were formed from names of Khufu (he had more than one).

bloodymarvelous: The bat guano and insect shells that were supposedly found filling the chambers suggests they were accessible to bats at some time in their history. For a long time, even.

Bat-dung was found in Davison’s Chamber, not the others.

We'll ignore the possibility that Vyse wrote them there for now.

This “possibility” is examined and discussed in The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer, Part I, Chapter 13: “A Forger's Sourcebook.”

Hanslune: : Yeah and of course the Goyon Grinsell mark a name place on what is now the outside of the pyramid but originally inside the cladding. Fringe runs in terror from that one. ...

bloodymarvelous: Why would they run in terror?

They do. As for why, what explanation is there for the presence of these marks (plural), other than their belonging to the wider pattern of the organisation of labour in the Old Kingdom of ancient Egypt? At least one of the inscriptions on the exposed core blocks is the name of an aper, a work-crew, that in turn includes one of Khufu’s several names: “Khnum-Khufu.” It differs from the examples in the relieving chambers, but only within the range of variation in cursive writing of the period. In order to forge it successfully, therefore, Vyse would have needed to understand how aper names functioned within the Old Kingdom system of labour organisation, about which no one knew anything in 1837. If he had merely found and copied it, then why does it not appear in that form in the relieving-chambers? Etc., etc. (The question is discussed in detail in Strange Journey, Part II, Ch. 24: “This Side Up.” For more on problems connected with the name “Khnum-Khufu” itself, see Appendix 9, “The Mysterious Brother of Khufu.”)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

We'll ignore the possibility that Vyse wrote them there for now.

SC: The possibility that the painted marks of Khufu's various appellations allegedly discovered by Colonel Vyse within the Great Pyramid has been extensively discussed in my book The Great Pyramid Hoax.

There is other material on this issue you can read here. I will be publishing more in my new book later this year.

SC

a reply to: purplemer

Al-Maqrizi the medieval Egyptian historian states the pryamid was built by Saurid before the great flood. Thats Enoch.

(Following on from Harte's reply) -

More on Saurid and the Flood in the Al-Khitat, by the Arab writer, Al-Maqrizi, and the role played by mediaeval Arab traditions in a recent work, here and here.

Colonel Vyse faked the Khufu cartouche. Anyone who thinks he did not is wasting our time.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Colonel Vyse faked the Khufu cartouche. Anyone who thinks he did not is wasting our time.

Really?

How do you think Vyse managed it, then?

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Colonel Vyse faked the Khufu cartouche. Anyone who thinks he did not is wasting our time.

Singular? Just one. I have to ask why do you think there is just one?

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Colonel Vyse faked the Khufu cartouche. Anyone who thinks he did not is wasting our time.

How do you think Vyse managed it, then?

The more important question here is what evidence do YOU have to prove those painted marks are genuine?

Let's see it.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Colonel Vyse faked the Khufu cartouche. Anyone who thinks he did not is wasting our time.

How do you think Vyse managed it, then?

The more important question here is what evidence do YOU have to prove those painted marks are genuine?

Let's see it.

As well you know, it's widely accepted that the crew-marks in Campbell's Chamber are genuine (see Vyse, Lepsius, Sethe, Reisner, Roth, etc., etc.), and plenty of evidence to that effect has already been produced.

If anyone is going to propose a new theory, the burden of proof lies with them.

To quote your own words: let's see it. (I've certainly seen nothing thus far ... )

a reply to: Hooke

H: As well you know, it's widely accepted that the crew-marks in Campbell's Chamber are genuine (see Vyse, Lepsius, Sethe, Reisner, Roth, etc., etc.), and plenty of evidence to that effect has already been produced.

SC: Hah! "Widely accepted". That old chestnut. Being "widely accepted" doesn't mean it's right. (See Argumentum ad populum fallacy).

Now, I asked you for actual evidence to show those painted marks are genuine and all you can muster is a bibliography of et als all agreeing with each other and all following the lead of a guy, Vyse, who is a known fraudster. Hardly compelling, far from convincing and totally lacking in any scientific evidence.

How many of those individuals you cite have considered (just to cite a few examples), the back-to-front numbers in Campbell's Chamber, or the disappearing sign from Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber, or the sudden appearance of a cartouche in Wellington's Chamber, and many other such anomalies in those chambers? I'll tell you. Precisely none of them have. In short, your et als haven't considered all of the evidence or any of the anomalies I present within that evidence. So your little bibliography here is entirely meaningless.

H: If anyone is going to propose a new theory, the burden of proof lies with them.

SC: Alas, that's where you're 100% wrong. The orthodox view is the prevailing view (daft I know, but that's kinda how it works). They are the gate-keepers, the guardians and custodians of our history. They tell us our history. THEY SET the narrative. In this case they tell us that those painted marks in those chambers are genuine. Well, I would like them (and YOU as one of their supporters) to give more than just a bloody bibliography and a cultural context to back up these assertions. You might well be gullible enough to accept their opinion merely on the basis of them having some letters after their names. However, the thinking among us demand a much higher standard of proof. Some actual evidence. You have presented nothing but a bunch of et als and yet you expect people to just accept that.

Sorry, but no. That is simply not good enough. If you want to convince me (and I imagine many others) of the veracity of the mainstream view, you will need to present actual evidence that those painted marks are genuine. I suggest that hard scientific evidence (as opposed to soft scientific evidence) would be best.

H: To quote your own words: let's see it. (I've certainly seen nothing thus far ... )

SC: Well, given your hidebound attachment to the status quo, I wouldn't expect you to say anything else. But I have let you see plenty, as well you know. So many anomalies I have presented. So many questions I have presented. And so few answers you have offered in response. Would you like to have another try?

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

SC: ...

I asked you for actual evidence to show those painted marks are genuine and all you can muster is a bibliography of et als all agreeing with each other and all following the lead of a guy, Vyse, who is a known fraudster. ...

Before I consider the rest of your comments, could I ask you to kindly show me on what date, and in which court, Vye was convicted of fraud?

(For some reason, I seem to be lacking this information).

Many thanks.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

SC: ...

I asked you for actual evidence to show those painted marks are genuine and all you can muster is a bibliography of et als all agreeing with each other and all following the lead of a guy, Vyse, who is a known fraudster. ...

Before I consider the rest of your comments, could I ask you to kindly show me on what date, and in which court, Vye was convicted of fraud?

(For some reason, I seem to be lacking this information).

Many thanks.

SC: Where did I say he was convicted of his electoral fraud? Fact is - he got away with it in his lifetime. However, the evidence proving he committed electoral fraud surfaced some 15 years after his death. Hence he is known to have perpetrated electoral fraud, thus he is a known fraudster. Just not a convicted one. (See HOAX p.32-35).

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

SC: ...

I asked you for actual evidence to show those painted marks are genuine and all you can muster is a bibliography of et als all agreeing with each other and all following the lead of a guy, Vyse, who is a known fraudster. ...

Before I consider the rest of your comments, could I ask you to kindly show me on what date, and in which court, Vye was convicted of fraud?

SC: Where did I say he was convicted of his electoral fraud? Fact is - he got away with it in his lifetime. However, the evidence proving he committed electoral fraud surfaced some 15 years after his death. Hence he is known to have perpetrated electoral fraud, thus he is a known fraudster. Just not a convicted one. (See HOAX p.32-35).

SC

(Where did I say electoral fraud?)

However, if we are discussing electoral fraud: where is the evidence that he was shown to have committed it?

a reply to: Hooke

H: …if we are discussing electoral fraud: where is the evidence that he was shown to have committed it?

SC: He broke the law of the land by bribing the electorate in the 1807 UK election with cash for votes. You can find the evidence of this bribery in HOAX 32-35 (and follow the cited source). Doubtless you will next try to claim that Vyse knew nothing about the bribes, that it was his agents who were solely responsible, as if that somehow absolves Vyse of any responsibility or wrong-doing. Vyse was the man with the arrogant sense of privileged entitlement and the money to get what he wanted. Not his agents. If you believe Vyse didn’t supply the money and would have known nothing of this bribery, then I suspect you’ll be telling us next the tooth fairy is real.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I have no axe to grind when it comes to Ancient Egypt. I find it a fascinating period but also one i have very limited knowledge of. I have read a lot but not really studied (if that makes sense!), so any knowledge is purely superficial.

However, i have to take you up on one of your statements as it is completely false. In any field of academia (or indeed any field at all), anyone proposing a new theory has to demonstrate the feasibility of that theory - they have to provide evidence. Conjecture is not evidence and conjecture only provides reasons for a theory, it doesn't prove a theory.

Speculation is all well and good (and actually good for theorisizing) but does not prove anything at all. Evidence is king.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Evidence is king.

SC: I absolutely agree. The point I am making here is to demand from those who would have us believe that the painted marks in those chambers are genuine, provide a higher standard of evidence themselves than they have hitherto done. It is not simply those of us who have an alternative view that have to present evidence to support their position. Everyone with a view has to present evidence to back up their particular claim, and that includes the orthodox view. Where is their evidence? Thus far it amounts to cultural context and Colonel Vyse being an upstanding pillar of the community who would never have lowered himself to perpetrating such a dastardly deed. Hardly a convincing level of proof.

On the other side of the coin, I have presented loads of evidence in my books (with another to come later this year) that raises serious questions around the painted marks Vyse claimed to have discovered in those chambers.

This article here gives you a small taste of just some of the evidence I have uncovered over the years that brings me to seriously doubt the mainstream narrative with regards to Colonel Vyse's 'discovery' of these painted marks.

SC

Originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

H: …if we are discussing electoral fraud: where is the evidence that he was shown to have committed it?

SC: He broke the law of the land by bribing the electorate in the 1807 UK election with cash for votes. You can find the evidence of this bribery in HOAX 32-35 (and follow the cited source). Doubtless you will next try to claim that Vyse knew nothing about the bribes, that it was his agents who were solely responsible, as if that somehow absolves Vyse of any responsibility or wrong-doing. Vyse was the man with the arrogant sense of privileged entitlement and the money to get what he wanted. Not his agents. If you believe Vyse didn’t supply the money and would have known nothing of this bribery, then I suspect you’ll be telling us next the tooth fairy is real.

Paying voters after an election was not deemed to be bribery under the law as it stood in 1807.

Nor were such payments considered to be grounds for voiding an election. It is mere supposition that the Select Committee which examined Major Philip Staple’s petition was unaware of these payments when it declined to void the result in Staple's favour. although, even if it had known about them, it would have made no difference

What we can infer from the Select Committee's decision is that it was unconvinced that Staple was any better than Vyse. This was the right conclusion, as Staple was far from being the unimpeachable character you make him out to be. (At a time when Vyse senior supported abolition of the slave trade, for instance, Staple came up with a proposal to run slavery more efficiently.)

In passing: you may find it better, when purporting to quote from a statute (HOAX, 33), to actually do so. The Act in question is not called“the Corrupt Practices Act of 1696”, and nor does it contain the wording:

... candidates for election who gave or promised any present or reward to any person having a vote ...

Despite your claims, therefore, what Vyse did could not be called bribery, and he was at no point deemed to have broken any laws.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Does anyone know, if they have retrieved the rest of the Dixon artifact from the shaft?

It outrages me when i think how badly that Disneyland tourist trap is being managed.

Originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

Having established that Vyse was not guilty of any breaches of electoral law as it stood in the early 19th century, perhaps I could now move on to the other points in your post.

SC: Hah! "Widely accepted". That old chestnut. Being "widely accepted" doesn't mean it's right. (See Argumentum ad populum fallacy).

Progress at last.

I’ve noticed over the last couple of years this fallacy being mentioned to you. Now that you’ve learnt what it is, might it not be an idea to stop using it?

As for me, I am happy to go with the consensus of those who, having studied the subject, know something about it (such as Lepsius, Sethe, Reisner, Roth, Dobrev, Andrássy ...) and discount that of those (such as Cayce devotees) who bring nothing to the question but a bias which makes them receptive to your HOAX.

It has been explained to you that:

it is not the job of evidence to “prove” that things are “genuine”.

It therefore falls to you to show that prima facie ancient Egyptian inscriptions are not what they appear to be: inscriptions written by ancient Egyptians.

Moreover, claims such as the following do not meet that requirement:

SC: How many of those individuals you cite have considered (just to cite a few examples), the back-to-front numbers in Campbell's Chamber,

Your less-than-lucid reasoning on this point is less than convincing.

SC: or the disappearing sign from Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber,

There was no disappearing sign. The problem lay in your failure to grasp the technical processes required in the 19th century for the publication of images.