Great Pyramid Void Enigma - Excerpt#1 From My New Book

Pretty cool stuff here thank you for sharing your work. I can’t wait to read the rest later on!

a reply to: Scott Creighton


I find it fascinating that Mr Hawass is going with the 'nothing to see here' angle while at the same time getting upset about not being consulted before the press release.

It seems his only concern is running defense on any new discovery lest it changes the official narrative.


Is that your impression as well?

Are they committed to keeping certain aspects of ancient history relegated to mythology status?

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Intriguing. Thank you for sharing this!

These pyramids are like a giant puzzle box.. It is really weird that the one really responsible for the build did not bother to engrave his name in there somewhere which would pass the test of time just like his creation does.. Such an incredible effort to build these things and well aware that it will survive thousends of years..yet..no info about what it is. Really weird..

And what about these two other pyramids..sure there must be some reason why they are build aswell.. I was informed that in the 60;s simular measurement were done with kosmic radiation to find out if there were hollow spaces in them. But the measurements said no..nothing to see there.

I really hope that this new found void will give some definite answers. And most important..that Hawass will be honest and share the truth with us. Its my impression that he will never admid that the pyramids are something else than tombs...even if the evidence is right in his face. Even so when advanced tech will be found he will hide this from the public. For all we know the egyptian government has instructed him to keep it a secret just in case this tech can be weaponized...or the tech can be applied to make a fortune..for the happy few.

originally posted by: zatara

...

It is really weird that the one really responsible for the build did not bother to engrave his name in there somewhere which would pass the test of time just like his creation does..

...

Cartouche names of Khufu appear in the relieving chambers (as components of work crew, aperu, names, and also in the second boat pit (on the underside of the sealing stone, and elsewhere); as well as in other locations on the Giza Plateau.

There's a more detailed explanation and discussion of pyramid construction in the Old Kingdom here; and also some discussion of royal cartouche names in Appendix 1 (vol. 2) here.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: zatara

...

It is really weird that the one really responsible for the build did not bother to engrave his name in there somewhere which would pass the test of time just like his creation does..

...

Cartouche names of Khufu appear in the relieving chambers (as components of work crew, aperu, names, and also in the second boat pit (on the underside of the sealing stone, and elsewhere); as well as in other locations on the Giza Plateau.

There's a more detailed explanation and discussion of pyramid construction in the Old Kingdom here; and also some discussion of royal cartouche names in Appendix 1 (vol. 2) here.

I think what Zatara is referring to are official ("engraved") inscriptions within the monument, of which there are none. The contentious so-called 'workers' graffiti do not qualify in that regard so your mentioning of them in the context of Zatara's point about official markings of Khufu is odd. Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

SC

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: Scott Creighton


I find it fascinating that Mr Hawass is going with the 'nothing to see here' angle while at the same time getting upset about not being consulted before the press release.

It seems his only concern is running defense on any new discovery lest it changes the official narrative.


Is that your impression as well?

Are they committed to keeping certain aspects of ancient history relegated to mythology status?

Hi,

The emerging science of Geomythology is (slowly) helping to turn what is generally considered as mythology back into history. It's a slow process but, I believe, a valuable one since it has long been my belief that most of our most ancient myths hold (at least) a kernel of truth. Myths and legends do not develop in a vacuum. More and more scientists are slowly coming to that realisation.

The odd exception notwithstanding, I don't think Egyptology/archaeology in general deliberately attempts to distort or mislead. I believe that most Egyptologists / archaeologists genuinely believe that the evidence they have uncovered over the centuries only points to one conclusion--the pyramid-as-tomb-of-the-pharaoh. I personally think they are wrong in that conclusion but I can understand why they could have come to it. They came very close, imo, to getting it right but stumbled at the final hurdle.

My new book places a considerable challenge to the conventional mainstream tomb narrative and explains why, imo, these monuments (including the Big Void) were built.

Best,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Thanks for that. I agree with your viewpoint regarding mythology.

I look forward to reading your book.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

I think what Zatara is referring to are official ("engraved") inscriptions within the monument, of which there are none. The contentious so-called 'workers' graffiti do not qualify in that regard so your mentioning of them in the context of Zatara's point about official markings of Khufu is odd. Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

Not sure why “engraved” is in scare quotes. It is not synonymous with “official”. “X is official” does not entail “X is engraved”. Nor does “X is cursive” entail “X is unofficial”.

Identifying these inscriptions as “workers’ graffiti” (with all that entails) is, actually, entirely unwarranted and recent discussions of them do not do so. The neutral term “dipinti” is employed. The tendency is very much to identify them as an expression of the (“official”) system of organising labour in the pyramid age. It is not like someone writing facetiously “Khufu has a big nose.”

That “the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes” is mere assertion.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

Really? Even the ones that clearly match similar markings found by remote cameras in and around air shafts that haven't seen human eyes since the thing was built? That's some pretty enthusiastic fakery.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

I think what Zatara is referring to are official ("engraved") inscriptions within the monument, of which there are none. The contentious so-called 'workers' graffiti do not qualify in that regard so your mentioning of them in the context of Zatara's point about official markings of Khufu is odd. Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

Not sure why “engraved” is in scare quotes. It is not synonymous with “official”. “X is official” does not entail “X is engraved”. Nor does “X is cursive” entail “X is unofficial”.

Not 'scare quotes' - I was quoting the word Zatara used.

That “the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes” is mere assertion.

"Assertion" backed up with a considerable body of evidence that I leave my readers to weigh up and draw their own conclusion. That you (and others like you) continue to believe these crudely painted marks in the Vyse Chambers of the Great Pyramid to be genuine Fourth Dynasty is, imo, what is "mere assertion" here. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that those crudely painted, so-called 'worker's marks' ('masons marks') 'discovered' by Vyse are genuine. But you are, of course, perfectly entitled to your belief and I respect that. I have absolutely no intention or interest here in attempting to convince you otherwise and I hope that you will, whether you agree with it or not, respect my right to my opinion. If you are here merely to insist you are right and I am wrong then you're completely wasting my time and yours.

Regards,

SC

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

Really? Even the ones that clearly match similar markings found by remote cameras in and around air shafts that haven't seen human eyes since the thing was built? That's some pretty enthusiastic fakery.

Hi,

See The Great Pyramid Hoax (Bear & Co, 2016). pp.50-56

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

Really? Even the ones that clearly match similar markings found by remote cameras in and around air shafts that haven't seen human eyes since the thing was built? That's some pretty enthusiastic fakery.

Hi,

See The Great Pyramid Hoax (Bear & Co, 2016). pp.50-56

SC

Doesn't really answer the question, particular with the new marks found where no person except those building the thing could get to them.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

Really? Even the ones that clearly match similar markings found by remote cameras in and around air shafts that haven't seen human eyes since the thing was built? That's some pretty enthusiastic fakery.

Hi,

See The Great Pyramid Hoax (Bear & Co, 2016). pp.50-56

SC

Doesn't really answer the question, particular with the new marks found where no person except those building the thing could get to them.

Hi,

These marks found by Upuaut II in the tiny cavity at the end of the southern star shaft of the Queen's Chamber are clearly genuine and are not disputed by me. The painted marks 'discovered' by Vyse are the ones being disputed. However, these genuine marks found in the small cavity (none of which are a King's name) raise questions about the marks Vyse claimed to have 'discovered' because their orthography is entirely different and not contemporary with the marks Vyse claimed to have 'discovered'. If you believe the marks Vyse 'discovered' are genuine then that's your choice and I have no quibble with that.

Now, I have no intention of going into this chapter and verse. The reasons (and there are many) why I believe those marks Vyse claimed to have 'discovered' are fraudulent are laid out in my previous book, The Great Pyramid Hoax. This thread is about The Big Void which is the central topic of my new book. Let's try and stay on topic.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

My question is how does this void disprove it was a pharoahs tomb? Doesnt seem to go against anything egyptologists have said as far as i can tell.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: zatara

...

It is really weird that the one really responsible for the build did not bother to engrave his name in there somewhere which would pass the test of time just like his creation does..

...

Cartouche names of Khufu appear in the relieving chambers (as components of work crew, aperu, names, and also in the second boat pit (on the underside of the sealing stone, and elsewhere); as well as in other locations on the Giza Plateau.

There's a more detailed explanation and discussion of pyramid construction in the Old Kingdom here; and also some discussion of royal cartouche names in Appendix 1 (vol. 2) here.

I think what Zatara is referring to are official ("engraved") inscriptions within the monument, of which there are none. The contentious so-called 'workers' graffiti do not qualify in that regard so your mentioning of them in the context of Zatara's point about official markings of Khufu is odd. Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

SC

Maybe but that isnt the only evidence either now that they have done major excavations in the workers village. They know what the workers did who they built it for and even how much stuff costed. People were proud of their work on the great pyramid and made sure their tombs showed their contributions.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

My question is how does this void disprove it was a pharoahs tomb? Doesnt seem to go against anything egyptologists have said as far as i can tell.

Hi,

It's not my intention to "disprove" anything. I am presenting evidence to support my view that the purpose of the Great Pyramid (and its Big Void) was something else entirely different to what Egyptologists tell us. If Egyptologists believe these monuments were built simply as the tomb-of the-king, then that is for them to prove, not I. I present plenty of evidence in my new book to support my own belief as to why the GP and the Big Void were built. I leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusion from the evidence I present in the new book.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke
...

Not sure why “engraved” is in scare quotes. It is not synonymous with “official”. “X is official” does not entail “X is engraved”. Nor does “X is cursive” entail “X is unofficial”.

Not 'scare quotes' - I was quoting the word Zatara used.

That “the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes” is mere assertion.

"Assertion" backed up with a considerable body of evidence that I leave my readers to weigh up and draw their own conclusion. That you (and others like you) continue to believe these crudely painted marks in the Vyse Chambers of the Great Pyramid to be genuine Fourth Dynasty is, imo, what is "mere assertion" here. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that those crudely painted, so-called 'worker's marks' ('masons marks') 'discovered' by Vyse are genuine. But you are, of course, perfectly entitled to your belief and I respect that. I have absolutely no intention or interest here in attempting to convince you otherwise and I hope that you will, whether you agree with it or not, respect my right to my opinion. If you are here merely to insist you are right and I am wrong then you're completely wasting my time and yours.

...

Zatara wrote “engrave” (and not “engraved”). More important is the point you ignored: your spurious assumption that only engraved inscriptions are “official” (which in passing has nothing to do with what Zatara wrote).

Which is (again) mere assertion: an appeal to your subjective (and scarcely unbiased) impressions. Books, articles and media appearances tell us that you are trying to convince others of your opinion. You do not have a right to do so unchallenged.

I see that you mention Dr. Walne in "Void," and suggest amongst other things that Vyse approached him for funds, "money for Hill and Raven."

But Vyse was a wealthy man.

What evidence do you have that Walne had any assets to speak of?

we will know what is above the great gallery when teams will be allowed again to do further studies in the future.
At the moment the only reasonable engineering/ technical and mostly importantlyt he architectural theories are from Jean Pierre Houdin. His anyalysis of the inner ramp/ built from inside to outside/ building steps/ explanation of current structural elements like great gallery, cavities.
No enigmas, but rather the climax of the enormous planing, engineering and coordination abilities of the EA.
only the commercial fringe keeps on mystifiying.