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

this article on Em Hotep site is a very interesting read for everyone who is interested in the porpose of the internal structures.

emhotep.net...





so JP Houdin suggests that the presence of the five relieving chambers ,architectural speaking, is pointing to other reasons.
They are not necessary for the protection of the grand gallery but for other structures under it( antechambers).

The void above it maybe for additional security reasons ( my 5 cts).

a reply to: Scott Creighton

So if I'm understanding you there is one you think could have been forged. What about the others that mention Khufu?

a reply to: anti72

Got to love the way an engineer thinks.

originally posted by: Homefree
It's where the pharaoh hid his weed.

Great thread by the way, very interesting stuff..look forward to the book

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I know you are excited. But there is not really that much about pyramids. Void or not.

The only folly is current humans assuming that ancients did not possess advanced technology.

As I have said on this board - technology like everything else goes in cycles and people get poorer knowledge-wise due to war, famines, and geographical changes.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

So if I'm understanding you there is one you think could have been forged. What about the others that mention Khufu?

No, not just the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber. There is a considerable body of evidence that all those king's names (and other sundry marks) were faked. It's all presented in my previous book, The Great Pyramid Hoax and much more again in Appendix 2 of my new book.

The Great Pyramid Hoax, in the main, focused on the marks in Wellington's Chamber and Campbell's Chamber. The new book focuses mainly on the other two chambers, Nelson's Chamber and Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber to show that the painted marks Vyse 'discovered' therein are also almost certainly fraudulent.

SC

originally posted by: vedatruth1
a reply to: Scott Creighton

I know you are excited. But there is not really that much about pyramids. Void or not.

The only folly is current humans assuming that ancients did not possess advanced technology.

As I have said on this board - technology like everything else goes in cycles and people get poorer knowledge-wise due to war, famines, and geographical changes.

My interest isn't the pyramids per se but, rather, the reason why the pre-dynastic Egyptians felt the need to construct them at all which, according to the ancient Coptic-Egyptian tradition, was to try and ensure the kingdom could be reborn again after an anticipated cataclysm destroyed it. That is what they say and it is being ignored by mainstream Egyptology as nothing more than myth and legend. The Coptic-Egyptian tradition (along with many other ancient traditions) suggests that this great Earth cataclysm is cyclical in nature and that they 'mapped' its periodicity into the arrangement of the monuments.

If the Big Void contains what the Coptic Egyptians tell us (i.e. the remains of Sūrīd's ancestors) then this will, imo, go a long way to proving the veracity of this so-called 'legend' and, hopefully, prompt Egyptology to sit up and pay a bit more attention to what these ancient people are actually trying to tell us. I personally think that is something worth being excited about.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

(dragonridr)
So if I'm understanding you there is one you think could have been forged. What about the others that mention Khufu?

(SC)
No, not just the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber. There is a considerable body of evidence that all those king's names (and other sundry marks) were faked. It's all presented in my previous book, The Great Pyramid Hoax and much more again in Appendix 2 of my new book.

Speaking for myself, I do not find your “considerable body of evidence” convincing. I do not find any of it convincing.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

(dragonridr)
So if I'm understanding you there is one you think could have been forged. What about the others that mention Khufu?

(SC)
No, not just the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber. There is a considerable body of evidence that all those king's names (and other sundry marks) were faked. It's all presented in my previous book, The Great Pyramid Hoax and much more again in Appendix 2 of my new book.

Speaking for myself, I do not find your “considerable body of evidence” convincing. I do not find any of it convincing.

Then you'll have little difficulty in offering us all a reasonable answer to the question(s) I posed you at the foot of this post.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

This is complete deflection; flim-flam to avoid answering my questions in that post. You have no reasonable answer - fine.

As a description of your response to my post and my question, this is spot on.

Allow me to remind you that you started this thread - and that it concerns your new book.

I look forward to reading in this new book your definitive exposition of the points you raised here and here. I’m assuming that you would not have drawn attention to them if you did not consider them cogent and current enough for print - and it would have to be in Void, as they go beyond what’s in HOAX.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

This is complete deflection; flim-flam to avoid answering my questions in that post. You have no reasonable answer - fine.

Allow me to remind you that you started this thread - and that it concerns your new book.

Allow me to remind you that you stated this:

"...you are trying to convince others of your opinion. You do not have a right to do so unchallenged," from here.

So, rather than all your deflection, evasion and flim-flam, let's see you respond to the question(s) I presented you at the foot of this post that you find so unconvincing?

Let's see your challenge to it. We're waiting.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

So, rather than all your deflection, evasion and flim-flam, let's see you respond to the question(s) I presented you at the foot of this post that you find so unconvincing?

Let's see your challenge to it. We're waiting.

I’m waiting for your answer to my simple question about the content of your book. You know: the book this thread is about.

Does it cover the points which you now find so important? Yes or no?

Why you are so evasive, when the question concerns your book, escapes me.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

Then you'll have little difficulty in offering us all a reasonable answer to the question(s) I posed you at the foot of this post.

The non sequitur I’ll pass over.

You remind us here of the importance you (now) attach to the points you raised in that old post.

The question (again) is this: did you find them important enough to include in your book? I find no sign of you having done so. Your sudden unwillingness to talk about anything else - in a thread concerning that book, started by you - is therefore a little surprising. If you found them convincing yourself, they’d be in the book. Is that not so?

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

So, rather than all your deflection, evasion and flim-flam, let's see you respond to the question(s) I presented you at the foot of this post that you find so unconvincing?

Let's see your challenge to it. We're waiting.

I’m waiting for your answer to my simple question about the content of your book. You know: the book this thread is about.

Does it cover the points which you now find so important? Yes or no?

Why you are so evasive, when the question concerns your book, escapes me.

Just as I suspected. You have entered into this thread merely to insist that your view of the quarry/mason's marks is the correct view and that my view is wrong and thus you are simply wasting everyone's time. If you want to know what's in my latest book, you know where you can get a copy. I am not going to cite chapter and verse what it contains just for you.

YOU are the one who brought the topic of the quarry/mason's marks into this discussion here. I subsequently pointed out to folks (who almost certainly will have been unaware of the fact) that when we last discussed this issue, you refused to address the evidence I presented, citing some very lame excuse for your avoidance (you didn't like the tone of my post - heavens above! Would you like me to post some of the truly horrific posts your co-author has posted over the years? And do we see any condemnation by you to those horrific posts made by your co-author? No, we don't. So quit with the lame excuses).

I shall now leave the readership here at ATS to draw their own conclusion as to why you continue to refuse to challenge my opinions (which you said you would challenge) by presenting your rebuttal to it.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Are you insane? Do you believe the only evidence that connects the Pyramid to the era of 2500 BCE is these cartouches?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Are you insane? Do you believe the only evidence that connects the Pyramid to the era of 2500 BCE is these cartouches?

You seem now to have moved on to a different question. I don't believe these quarry marks 'discovered' by Vyse are contemporary with the building of the Great Pyramid at all--and that's just one small part of why I consider them to be fake.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

I shall now leave the readership here at ATS to draw their own conclusion as to why you continue to refuse to challenge my opinions (which you said you would challenge) by presenting your rebuttal to it.

I did not say that I “would” challenge anything.

What I said was:

. . . 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.

Whether or not I have challenged your opinions is one of the things on which readers will no doubt “draw their own conclusions”. I suspect that they may wonder just what else it could be has got you so het up.

They may also wish to consult this work.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Are you insane? Do you believe the only evidence that connects the Pyramid to the era of 2500 BCE is these cartouches?

You seem now to have moved on to a different question. I don't believe these quarry marks 'discovered' by Vyse are contemporary with the building of the Great Pyramid at all--and that's just one small part of why I consider them to be fake.

SC

Ok so what are you implying? Do you doubt the pyramid was built by Khufu?

originally posted by: dragonridr

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Do you believe the only evidence that connects the Pyramid to the era of 2500 BCE is these cartouches?

As has continually been pointed out to Scott over the years (and even in this thread), there are various other examples of cartouche names of Khufu connected with the Great Pyramid:

- the names of aperu in the relieving chambers;

- the dipinti on backing blocks, noted by Goyon and Grinsell;

- the underside of the sealing-stone of the second boat pit; and

- inside the second boat pit itself.

Scott's readers must surely be particularly interested in learning how Vyse and his team:

- managed to lift the 14-ton sealing-stone of the second boat pit (instead of merely smashing it, as they did with another stone over a pit inside the GP);

- succeeded in roughly painting Khufu's cartouche name on the underside;

- then went on to paint five other examples of the cartouche name within the boat pit, at least one of them with an aper character (a feat in itself, bearing in mind that, in 1837, no one knew what an aper was);

- and put the sealing-stone back in place without damaging it.

I wish Scott would tell us how all this happened, because I'm dying to hear.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Are you insane? Do you believe the only evidence that connects the Pyramid to the era of 2500 BCE is these cartouches?

You seem now to have moved on to a different question. I don't believe these quarry marks 'discovered' by Vyse are contemporary with the building of the Great Pyramid at all--and that's just one small part of why I consider them to be fake.

SC

Ok so what are you implying? Do you doubt the pyramid was built by Khufu?

1) The quarry/mason's marks 'discovered' by Vyse are, in my considered opinion, fake.

2) If Sūrīd = Suphis (as some academics suspect) and Suphis = Khufu, then I absolutely accept Khufu built the GP. Indeed, if my theory regarding the Big Void is correct (based upon what the Coptic-Egyptians say about the pyramids), then it will conclusively prove that Khufu did indeed build this monument.

But just because I may accept Khufu built the GP, it does not and should not automatically follow that the painted marks 'discovered' by Vyse are genuine. The evidence I have amassed over the years strongly suggests otherwise.

SC