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

originally posted by: Hooke

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.

See The Great Pyramid Void Enigma, pp.187-191.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Wait what? Ok, so your whole theory is based on what Coptics said? were they even Egypt until the 3rd or 4th century? Im not even going to bother to look because it's silly that you base something on what Christians say about a pyramid built 2500 years before them. That's like saying you should take your mechanics advice over your doctor about a cold. Our mechanic has no clue what medication to prescribe you, just like Coptics have no clue how the Egyptians built the pyramids.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Wait what? Ok, so your whole theory is based on what Coptics said? were they even Egypt until the 3rd or 4th century?

The word 'Copt' actually means 'Egypt'. So yes, my theory is based on what the (Copts) 'Egyptians' said. And they tell us why the pyramids were built, not how they were built. So the rest of your point is moot.



Also see: The Great Pyramid Void Enigma, pp.17-21.

SC

anyone who doubts the ancient age of the original workers marks in the upper chambers is a fool, because they are actually covered in (fresh)stalagtite material. Thats HOW old they are.
There are workers markings ALL over the place up there.

originally posted by: anti72
anyone who doubts the ancient age of the original workers marks in the upper chambers is a fool, because they are actually covered in (fresh)stalagtite material. Thats HOW old they are.
There are workers markings ALL over the place up there.

1) What's your source for this?

2) You've written 'stalagtite' - there's no such thing. Do you mean stalactite or stalagmite?

3) If the marks "are actually covered in (fresh) stalagtite material", how would we actually see the marks?

4) How old is 'fresh'?

SC

Hooke said:

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.

See The Great Pyramid Void Enigma, pp.187-191.

SC

I should have added the following to my post above.

Do not impugn me with comments I have never said. Your comment above implies / gives the impression that I have argued that Vyse and his team also fraudulently painted the marks found in the boat pit. For the benefit of ATS readers, I have never said that anywhere. This individual impugns this upon me with sleight of hand tactics. And she does so in order to create a false equivalence of the marks in the boat pits (which are almost certainly genuine), with those in the Vyse Chambers (that are almost certainly fake). She seems to think that just because genuine quarry marks have been found elsewhere at Giza and beyond then this is compelling evidence that the marks in the Vyse Chambers are also genuine. She fails to understand or acknowledge that there are unscrupulous people in the world (and Egypt has had more than its fair share of them) who create fakes by COPYING some other genuine artefact from elsewhere for their own selfish ends.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Your just historically wrong the word copt wasn't used until the 17th century. Egypt’s Coptic period—also called Egypt’s Christian period—lasted 500 years, from the fourth century to the ninth century C.E., when the majority of Egypt’s population was Christian. Prior to this, the Greeks used the term Aígyptos. Its from greek mythology Aegyptus ruled Arabia and conquered a nearby country ruled by people called Melampodes and called it by his name. So Egypt was born from being concurred according to Greek legends.

So back to Coptics they first appear in Sudan and Egypt in the 1st century though my early guess was sort of right because it was one church and some monks. Coptic was spoken between the cities of Asyut and Oxyrhynchus and flourished as a literary language across Egypt in the period c. 325 – c. 800 AD. In other words, any knowledge they had would have been in that time period. Interesting side note they claim Jesus visited them as a refugee when he went into hiding.

So now that we established Coptic only goes back to the first century at most how on earth are you going to think they would know anything about a pyramid built 2500 years before that? where they archeologists ? Did they start digging in Giza?

I think I see where you're going with this if you believe in flood myths but again that's fiction. These monks created lots of stories with no basis in facts. Early Christians had to compete with many religions and would adopt their stories and ideas but that is an argument for another thread.

a reply to: Scott Creighton


Marduk's " Prison Cell " ? ..........Hmm...........

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Your just historically wrong the word copt wasn't used until the 17th century. Egypt’s Coptic period—also called Egypt’s Christian period—lasted 500 years, from the fourth century to the ninth century C.E., when the majority of Egypt’s population was Christian. Prior to this, the Greeks used the term Aígyptos. Its from greek mythology Aegyptus ruled Arabia and conquered a nearby country ruled by people called Melampodes and called it by his name. So Egypt was born from being concurred according to Greek legends.

So back to Coptics they first appear in Sudan and Egypt in the 1st century though my early guess was sort of right because it was one church and some monks. Coptic was spoken between the cities of Asyut and Oxyrhynchus and flourished as a literary language across Egypt in the period c. 325 – c. 800 AD. In other words, any knowledge they had would have been in that time period. Interesting side note they claim Jesus visited them as a refugee when he went into hiding.

So now that we established Coptic only goes back to the first century at most how on earth are you going to think they would know anything about a pyramid built 2500 years before that? where they archeologists ? Did they start digging in Giza?

I think I see where you're going with this if you believe in flood myths but again that's fiction. These monks created lots of stories with no basis in facts. Early Christians had to compete with many religions and would adopt their stories and ideas but that is an argument for another thread.

What you're actualy saying there is that Professor Guirguis from the video (not I) is wrong:

"...[the Copts are] the custodians of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, the carriers of the Egyptian spirit ... the word 'Copt' is 'Egypt', it means 'Egypt'... [the Copts are] the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians...We Copts provide the continuation between the ancient Egyptian civilisation and modern Egypt today."

To be honest, and no disrespect intended, I'm more inclined to accept her view on the issue than yours.

And yes, the Copts have passed down to us so-called 'legends and myths' as to why their ancestors built the pyramids. But legends do not occur in a vacuum. As I have previously stated, I firmly believe that within every legend there is a kernel of actual history. And that is what my new book The Great Pyramid Void Enigma aims to demonstrate - that there is much truth/fact in the Coptic-Egyptian so-called 'legends' that have come down to us. Even some scientists are now (slowly) coming to that view hence why the science of geomytholgy is now one of the newest fields of mainstream scientific study.

That you consider these 'legends' are all bunk? Fine. That's what mainstream Egyptology believes too. You're in good company. Maybe.

SC

Many thanks to everyone here at ATS reading this thread on my new book The Great Pyramid Void Enigma for helping to make this happen:





Thank you so much folks. I shall be presenting Excerpt #2 from my book here on ATS tomorrow. Do look out for it.

Best,

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

(SC) Your comment above implies / gives the impression that I have argued that Vyse and his team also fraudulently painted the marks found in the boat pit. For the benefit of ATS readers, I have never said that anywhere.

On the contrary, you mooted the possibility of the boat-pit not being “genuine” here — as noted at the time by a certain Martin Stower.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Scott’s misuse of this material attracted some comment last year.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

(SC) Your comment above implies / gives the impression that I have argued that Vyse and his team also fraudulently painted the marks found in the boat pit. For the benefit of ATS readers, I have never said that anywhere.

On the contrary, you mooted the possibility of the boat-pit not being “genuine” here — as noted at the time by a certain Martin Stower.

Yes, and that remains the case. I can believe those marks in the boat pits are genuine while, at the same time, keep open the possibility (if not probability) that they might not be genuine. Because, however remote a possibility it may be, they could still turn out to be fake. There is no contradiction in my position, merely a lack of critical and logical thinking on yours.

But this is all just another of your smokescreens to deflect away from the original issue which is your strange belief that just because painted quarry/mason's marks are found elsewhere at Giza or beyond that this should somehow confer authenticity on the painted marks in the Vyse Chambers. Again, complete lack of critical thinking by you. That's like saying just because you find a genuine $20 bill on the street, all the $20 bills in a master forger's cellar must also be genuine. NEWSFLASH HERMIONE: They might not be. But you consider them all genuine because you ignore all the evidence in the forger's cellar pointing to the very real possibility that the bills in his cellar might be fake. Nah - forget all that evidence. Because you found a genuine bill outside. This is precisely what you are doing with the considerable body of evidence that now exists that casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the Vyse marks.

Yes, we know you do not find any of that evidence at all convincing (thousands do) and yet you refuse to rebut key aspects of it, citing the lame excuse of the tone in my post. Yeah, sure. I know and you know too, Hermione (Director of ultra-orthodox Egyptology forum Hall of Ma'at), that if you could have given a reasonable and cogent answer to those questions I posed you, then you undoubtedly would have done so. And do not try and kid yourself or us otherwise. That is what you do, Hermione. It's what you're all about. Any chance you get to correct someone, anyone on these forums with your superior knowledge, you're right in there like the most strident and zealous Missionary/Crusader. Thinking about it, I guess this is how you see all of this--as some kind of personal Crusade.

Each to their own, I suppose.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

... citing the lame excuse of the tone in my post ...

On the contrary, Scott: your post leaves readers in no doubt of your tone being a problem.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

... citing the lame excuse of the tone in my post ...

On the contrary, Scott: your post leaves readers in no doubt of your tone being a problem.

Look Hermione--if you believe those painted marks in the Vyse Chambers are genuine Fourth Dynasty then fine. I absolutely respect peoples' rights to believe what they want to believe. But do not come in to my forum here and tell me that my opinions are wrong just because you say so with nothing to back up what you're saying or indeed, offering any rebuttals to my arguments. All you seem to want to do is indulge yourself in petty point-scoring and arguments over trivia and completely irrelevant material. That is, thus far, all that you have been doing here and I consider it utterly disrespectful of my forum here and my own personal views and that is simply not acceptable.

I don't have a problem with what you believe, Hermione. It is YOU that has the problem with what I believe. That is why you are here. You have stated previously that my opinions should not go unchallenged. Yet, when invited to challenge my argument (that you apparently find so unconvincing), you fail (refuse?) to do so. So, it begs the question, why are you here?

If you have no intention of properly engaging in the discussion here, then I ask politely that you take your opinions back to the Hall of Ma'at. Your 'I'm right just because I say so' isn't the basis of an argument. It's no argument at all.

SC

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Scott’s misuse of this material attracted some comment last year.

Ah now her statement makes more sense. That clip was edited what she meant to say was the Coptic language was the key to learning the Egyptian language. This is true we wouldn't even be using the name Khufu without the Coptic language because phonetics is hard to determine in writing. She didn't mean they had some special knowledge she was talking about the contribution to Egyptology.

So where right back to what i said earlier Coptic (Egyptians or Sudanese) are not going to ave any special knowledge of the purpose of the pyramids. They may be able to shed light on things that happened in the 1st century but not 2500 years before that.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Scott’s misuse of this material attracted some comment last year.

Ah now her statement makes more sense. That clip was edited what she meant to say was the Coptic language was the key to learning the Egyptian language. This is true we wouldn't even be using the name Khufu without the Coptic language because phonetics is hard to determine in writing. She didn't mean they had some special knowledge she was talking about the contribution to Egyptology.

So where right back to what i said earlier Coptic (Egyptians or Sudanese) are not going to ave any special knowledge of the purpose of the pyramids. They may be able to shed light on things that happened in the 1st century but not 2500 years before that.

First of all, the clip wasn't edited. The video merely started about halfway through. You only had to rewind to the beginning to listen to everything said.

Secondly, the Copts claim to be the descendants of the original ancient Egyptians. That is what Professor Guirguis tells us. They are indigenous to Egypt and have always lived in Egypt, all the way back to remote antiquity.

And finally, the Coptic traditions (legends) that have been passed down to us tell us the reason why their ancestors built the pyramids. The Coptic tradition further states that they placed the bodies of Khufu's ancestors within the Great Pyramid. That would need a pretty massive chamber and I suspect that chamber is the Big Void and that is what I argue (with relevant evidence) in my new book.

If those bodies of Khufu's ancestors are (one day) found within the Big Void, then this will, imo, establish the veracity of the Coptic Egyptian 'legend'.

Let's wait and see who is right.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

That doesn't make sense either he would have just built them a pyramid its what he did. His mother Queen Hetepheres was the daughter of the Third Dynasty’s last king, King Huni. She was a legal heir to the throne and carried royal blood. So I'm guessing you mean her bloodline? Next King Snefreu built a beautiful tomb for his wife near his pyramid in Saqqara. It was, however, robbed in the lifetime of King Khufu, who then directed workers to construct a new tomb for his mother near his great pyramid in the Giza. Grave robbery has always been a problem in Egypt so much so it was part of the economy.

But as you see he didn't build mom a room he built mom a pyramid.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72
anyone who doubts the ancient age of the original workers marks in the upper chambers is a fool, because they are actually covered in (fresh)stalagtite material. Thats HOW old they are.
There are workers markings ALL over the place up there.

1) What's your source for this?

2) You've written 'stalagtite' - there's no such thing. Do you mean stalactite or stalagmite?

3) If the marks "are actually covered in (fresh) stalagtite material", how would we actually see the marks?

4) How old is 'fresh'?

SC

it escapes my memory right now but Robert Schoch also has written about that phenomena.
it takes some thousand years to form that kind of crust..I dont know exactly which ones Schoch was referring to.

workers marks, I also have gotten photos of people that were up there, showing these old red ochre marks all over the place.

originally posted by: anti72

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72
anyone who doubts the ancient age of the original workers marks in the upper chambers is a fool, because they are actually covered in (fresh)stalagtite material. Thats HOW old they are.
There are workers markings ALL over the place up there.

1) What's your source for this?

2) You've written 'stalagtite' - there's no such thing. Do you mean stalactite or stalagmite?

3) If the marks "are actually covered in (fresh) stalagtite material", how would we actually see the marks?

4) How old is 'fresh'?

SC

it escapes my memory right now but Robert Schoch also has written about that phenomena.
it takes some thousand years to form that kind of crust..I dont know exactly which ones Schoch was referring to.

workers marks, I also have gotten photos of people that were up there, showing these old red ochre marks all over the place.

I think this may be what you are referring to:

Were these just fakes? Studying them closely, however, they looked authentically ancient to me. I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia." - Dr R. Schoch, Forbidden Science, Kenyon, D., Bear & Co., 2008, p.46.(my emphasis)

The process can be as quick as "centuries" and those chambers have now been open for almost two centuries.

SC