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

a reply to: Scott Creighton

1) Which crew-marks have been found on "casing stones"? My understanding is that Leslie Grinsell (and Goyon) found a crew name on the inside face of a core block on the 5th course, west side of the GP (presented upside-down). Can you provide a link/reference to those crew marks that you say are on the "casing stones"?

Yes, I should have written “on the exposed core blocks or backing blocks” (or something like that).

As you have already reproduced Goyon’s illustration in support of an argument of your own (in doing so implicitly acknowledging that the inscription is “authentic”), I’m not sure why you’d need a link, but a compilation of the relevant information may be found here.

Don’t get too excited about the phrase “quarry marks”: the page reflects the author’s understanding some years ago.

2) When were the 14-15 ton sealing stones first placed over the boat pit and what evidence is there for this date?

Was it in 1837? I (and I'm sure many other readers) look forward to learning more about this from your forthcoming book.

a reply to: Hooke

H: I’m not sure why you’d need a link...

SC: Because from what you said, I thought you had information about quarry marks found on casing stones. I was seeking a link to that info. But turns out you misspoke. No matter.

SC

a reply to: Hooke

H: Don’t get too excited about the phrase “quarry marks”: the page reflects the author’s understanding some years ago.

SC: Yes, as time passes our ideas about our past and our understanding of things grows and evolves, don't they. They don't remain static. We are each of us always learning. I'm curious though--you and your co-author formerly (until relatively recently) took the view that these painted marks were "quarry marks" i.e. marks painted onto the stone blocks by the work crews at the quarries. Why do you now seemingly believe that:

H: It was more likely that they were painted on the blocks whilst they were still on the site below...

By "on the site below" I presume you mean at the base of the pyramid? What has brought about this apparent change of mind? Is this now the official view of mainstream Egyptology, or just your own personal view? I only ask because the Roth paper you depend so much upon describes the painted marks found upon the stones of Menkaure's mortuary temple as "quarry marks" (Roth, Egyptian Phyles, p.15). Is Roth wrong? If so, how and why?

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

H: There is no evidence (as the law required) of a contract to exchange a vote for money and you can’t simply bluster your way through that requirement.

SC: At the umpteenth attempt at trying.

What is an “attempt at trying”? Certainly you are trying to bluster your way through the requirement again.

The very act of BUYING THE VOTES tells us a contract self-evidently was in place. You simply cannot make a payment for something if the other party does not agree to SELL IT. Use your common sense! The very fact of having bought votes IS, of itself, proof of a contract/agreement and, as such, no further proof of a contract/agreement would have been required.

I would love - just love - to see you try this in a court of law.

Establishing “having bought votes” as a fact requires evidence of contracts, while merely asserting it as a fact merely assumes that there were contracts. Your assumptions and your “would haves” have no standing.

All I can suggest is that you ask someone else to explain it to you.

a reply to: Hooke

H: Establishing “having bought votes” as a fact requires evidence of contracts, while merely asserting it as a fact merely assumes that there were contracts. Your assumptions and your “would haves” have no standing.

SC: Your opinion on this point is merely that and of little consequence.

If money has exchanged hands for votes then, in the absence of evidence proving that, yes, a corrupt contract (how could it be otherwise?) would have to be shown. And that was probably true for Staples when he lodged his petition after the 1807 election. He evidently couldn't prove the votes were bought nor could he show that there was a contract in place to purchase votes. If he could have proven one or other (i.e. votes were paid for OR a contract was in place) then his situation would have been very different.

Staples couldn't show any of that in 1807 but the situation we now have with Vyse is very different with the uncovering of Hind's 1869 testimony.

The proof (via Hind's testimony, presumably given under oath) that votes were bought and sold IS itself the proof of contract. As I previously told you and of which you appear to be having difficulty in understanding, the simple fact is this:

You cannot agree to pay for something (e.g. a vote) if the other party has not agreed to sell it. Do you understand that? Vyse made the "customary payments" for votes to his electors and we know the cost of those votes. Those votes were sold (by the electors) and paid for (by Vyse). Thereby, it stands to reason and plain old common sense, that an agreement to sell and buy those votes was self-evidently in place. How could it be otherwise? And that is straight-up bribery. No ifs, buts or maybes.

And I am fully of the opinion that the committee investigating Staples' allegation, had they been presented with this evidence, would have come to the same conclusion i.e. a proven purchase constitutes and is, of itself, evidence of a prior agreement to buy/sell i.e. corrupt.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Is Roth wrong?

No. You are. It boggles my mind how thoroughly you’ve misunderstood Roth.

Roth uses the phrase “quarry marks” exactly once (Egyptian Phyles, p. 15).

In relation to the ˤpr names, the phrase she uses is “masons’ marks”. This phrase she uses thirty times.

a reply to: Hooke

H: Roth uses the phrase “quarry marks” exactly once (Egyptian Phyles, p. 15).

And she uses that term in reference to "quarry marks" on the stone blocks of Menkaure's mortuary temple which include crew/gang names.

H: In relation to the ˤpr names, the phrase she uses is “masons’ marks”. This phrase she uses thirty times.

So she uses the term "masons' marks" and "quarry marks" to describe the painted marks on these stones at Menkaure's mortuary temple. Some of the masons' marks she states were found on tools, others on buildings, boats etc. Unless I missed it, she isn't clear, in terms of their origin, how masons' marks on stones differ to quarry marks on stones. Can you explain?

And can you confirm that the painted crew names we find were, as you now believe, painted onto the stones at the pyramid site? Which renowned Egyptologists supports this conclusion? Has it been peer reviewed? Are we now to abandon the former view that these painted crew names were painted onto the blocks at the quarry or during transportation? Or is this all just your personal view?

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

H: Roth uses the phrase “quarry marks” exactly once (Egyptian Phyles, p. 15).

And she uses that term in reference to "quarry marks" on the stone blocks of Menkaure's mortuary temple which include crew/gang names.

And she uses the phrase “masons’ marks” in reference to the same thing, more than once:

H: In relation to the ˤpr names, the phrase she uses is “masons’ marks”. This phrase she uses thirty times.

The search which yielded this figure relied on the correctness of the OCR, but a search on the string “s marks” finds 33 instances of “masons’ marks” in Roth’s text (while a search on “y marks” still finds only one of “quarry marks”).

She introduces the usage on page 4, in these terms:

... Reisner studied the use of phyles in Old Kingdom work crews in his publication of the masons’ marks on the blocks of the mortuary temple of Menkaure. ...

There is no mention of “quarry marks” in the index.

So clearly is “masons’ marks” her preferred term that I can only regard the importance you’ve given to this one instance only of “quarry marks” as misrepresentation. Readers may download the work here and judge for themselves.

Roth’s one mention of “quarry marks”:

A final example in which jmj-wrt occurs in the same context as the phyle name wr is in quarry marks found in the mortuary temple of Menkaure. ...

The reference given for this is “Reisner, Mycerinus, plan 12.” The same reference is given for “masons’ marks” on page 42 - and note again her introductory reference (quoted above) to Reisner’s publication “of the masons’ marks on the blocks of the mortuary temple of Menkaure.”

So she uses the term "masons' marks" and "quarry marks" to describe the painted marks on these stones at Menkaure's mortuary temple. Some of the masons' marks she states were found on tools, others on buildings, boats etc. Unless I missed it, she isn't clear, in terms of their origin, how masons' marks on stones differ to quarry marks on stones. Can you explain?

And can you confirm that the painted crew names we find were, as you now believe, painted onto the stones at the pyramid site? Which renowned Egyptologists supports this conclusion? Has it been peer reviewed? Are we now to abandon the former view that these painted crew names were painted onto the blocks at the quarry or during transportation? Or is this all just your personal view?

As I now believe? Have you forgotten this?

As for your assertion that Roth “states” that masons’ marks were found on tools and boats: I suggest you look more closely. On page 6, we find this:

... the inscription of the names of phyles on tools and on unfinished stone blocks, as masons’ marks ...

The correct parse (I suggest) is this:

... the inscription of the names of phyles [on tools] and [on unfinished stone blocks, as masons’ marks] ...

The phrase “as masons’ marks” goes with “[the inscription of the names of phyles] on unfinished stone blocks” and not with “the inscription of the names of phyles on tools”.

As for the rest: sorry, but if you want me to do the research for your forthcoming book, you’ll need to offer better terms.

(In any case, the subject is discussed in Part II of The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer, "From Quarry to Tomb", Ch. 26: Rats, Bats and Great Discoveries.)

a reply to: Hooke

The search which yielded this figure relied on the correctness of the OCR, but a search on the string “s marks” finds 33 instances of “masons’ marks” in Roth’s text (while a search on “y marks” still finds only one of “quarry marks”).

The labels we give these painted (or incised) marks is mostly immaterial to me. I am interested to know where and when these marks were likely placed upon the stones. At the quarry, during transportation from the quarry to the pyramid or at the base of the pyramid?

You formerly believed that these painted marks in the 'Vyse Chambers' would have been painted onto those blocks at the quarries. You now don't believe that but, seemingly, believe they were painted onto the stones at the pyramid site? I am interested to know what brought about your change of mind? Care to share it with us? (And no, I'm not asking you you divulge the entire contents of your book).

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Your opinion on this point is merely that and of little consequence.

So why are you trying so hard to change it?

Rather than merely return the compliment, I remind you that I have cited the opinions of men who practised the law of elections and were closer to it than you or I will ever be. Clearly for you their opinions are of little consequence also, leaving us in doubt that yours has any sound basis.

And I am fully of the opinion ...

Your opinion on this point is merely that and of little consequence, for the reason given.

a reply to: Hooke

SC: Your opinion on this point is merely that and of little consequence.

H: So why are you trying so hard to change it?

SC: I'm not. I'm merely stating my thoughts on what you have said previously. As I have already said in this thread--I wholeheartedly accept and respect your absolute right to have your own opinion on this, and on any other, issue. I am not, however, under any obligation to agree with it. Do you not see the difference?

H: Rather than merely return the compliment, I remind you that I have cited the opinions of men who practised the law of elections and were closer to it than you or I will ever be. Clearly for you their opinions are of little consequence also, leaving us in doubt that yours has any sound basis.

SC: I have never said, with regards to the men who were practising law at the time, that "their opinions are of little consequence". What I have said, in so many words, is that with the paucity of evidence the inquiry likely had before them in 1807, they would have had little reason not to clear Vyse of the bribery charge. Self-evidently there was no proof of actual bribery and no proof of a prior agreement/contract to commit bribery. And yes--they cleared Vyse in full consideration of the law as it was at that time. That is not disputed and never has been.

However, my argument is, and has always been, that had the investigating committee in 1807-8 had access to the material evidence that Joseph Hind presented (to a much later bribery inquiry), in which he testifies (presumably under oath) that Vyse DID purchase votes, then the men of law in 1807, in consideration of evidence of clear, unambiguous bribery having occurred, would have come to the quite opposite conclusion, and would have done so in full consideration of the law at the time.

You have been the one here trying to come up with technical legal wheezes to try and find a way to get Vyse off the hook. But, imo, they all fail. And they fail because, quite simply, BUYING VOTES, when proven, is straight-up bribery. No ifs, buts or maybes. And, as such, the requirement to prove that a prior agreement/contract was in place becomes entirely moot since the act of buying votes IS clear bribery and a contract/agreement, as I told you before, is inherent in the very act of buying/selling the votes. You would only have to prove a prior agreement/contract was in place when the purpose of any money paid after the election was unclear i.e. when the money paid may have been for some other legitimate purpose.

But with Hind's 1869 testimony (presumably given under oath) of Vyse having paid cash for votes, then we now know what the money was used for, we now know that clear bribery was committed by Vyse and given that a prior agreement/contract is intrinsic to the very action of bribery itself, then no further requirement to prove such would have been necessary.

SC: And I am fully of the opinion ...

H: Your opinion on this point is merely that and of little consequence, for the reason given.

SC: But alas, for you, it's an opinion I am perfectly entitled to. Now, I will say to you again; we can agree to disagree on this issue or. . .

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

H: I’m not sure why you’d need a link...

This being taken from the following paragraph:

As you have already reproduced Goyon’s illustration in support of an argument of your own (in doing so implicitly acknowledging that the inscription is “authentic”), I’m not sure why you’d need a link, but a compilation of the relevant information may be found here.

SC: Because from what you said, I thought you had information about quarry marks found on casing stones. I was seeking a link to that info. But turns out you misspoke. No matter.

As I had already mentioned “the names of Khufu reported by Goyon and Grinsell” (and your continuing to ignore them), I’m not sure why you’d think this. No matter. I hope that the link provided improved your “understanding” of what Grinsell and Goyon reported:

1) Which crew-marks have been found on "casing stones"? My understanding is that Leslie Grinsell (and Goyon) found a crew name on the inside face of a core block on the 5th course, west side of the GP (presented upside-down). Can you provide a link/reference to those crew marks that you say are on the "casing stones"?

Since you've returned to your usual silence on the question, I can only hope so.

a reply to: Hooke

H: Since you've returned to your usual silence on the question...

My interest, as you must surely know by now, is in uncovering and presenting evidence that points to the painted marks within the 'Vyse Chambers' as being likely fakes. Explain to me, exactly, how the Grinsell marks prove the authenticity of the marks in the 'Vyse Chambers'? If you can do that, then I might consider taking a deeper interest in the crew name Grinsell found.

Now, would you like me to point to the considerable number of questions, in this thread alone, whereupon YOU have "returned to your usual silence"?

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

My interest, as you must surely know by now, is in uncovering and presenting evidence that points to the painted marks within the 'Vyse Chambers' as being likely fakes. ...

Thank you for admitting your confirmation bias.

... Explain to me, exactly, how the Grinsell marks prove the authenticity of the marks in the 'Vyse Chambers'? If you can do that, then I might consider taking a deeper interest in the crew name Grinsell found.

Here are some relevant posts, none of which you answered:
grahamhancock.com...,347187,347783#msg-347783

grahamhancock.com...,1165482,1178490#msg-1178490[/ur l]

[url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1165482,1178587#msg-1178587]http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1165482,1178587#msg-1178587[/ur l]

[url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1178834,1179005#msg-1179005]http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1178834,1179005#msg-1179005[/ur l]

[url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1178834,1179053#msg-1179053]http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1178834,1179053#msg-1179053[/ur l]

[url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1178834,1179088#msg-1179088]http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1178834,1179088#msg-1179088[/ur l]

Now, would you like me to point to the considerable number of questions, in this thread alone, whereupon YOU have "returned to your usual silence"?

Would you like me to tell you what [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque]tu quoque is?

Ah, thank you , apologies for my ignorance . a reply to: EloquentPeasant