Men Who Vandalized Great Pyramid To Prove 'Theory' Face Charges

Men Who Vandalized Egyptian Pyramid To Prove 'Theory' Face Charges

Two self-styled amateur archeologists from Germany, who filmed themselves scraping off pieces of Egypt's Great Pyramid in hopes of proving that the ancient wonder was built by people from the legendary city of Atlantis, are now facing possible criminal charges in their home country.

During a trip to Egypt in April 2013, Dominque Goerlitz and Stephan Erdmann, along with a German filmmaker, were granted access to parts of the Great Pyramid at Giza that are normally off-limits to the public. They smuggled their samples back to Germany with plans to produce a documentary.

Well first off I must admit I'm all for testing the sample but I'm dead-set against how this came about and went down. For the record I too do in fact wonder if the 'Great Pyramid' is older than is believed and question the legitimacy of the cartouche's age.

Some believe it was faked just to prove the Pyramid was built by Khufu/Cheops by an overzealous individual, More about that topic here...

I'd still like to see the testing done legitimately and then compared to these other markings discovered fairly recently. Images from the Great Pyramid's 'chamber of secrets '

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75d888072cc4.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9e86e3bcb8f1.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a66d126cc34.jpg[/atsimg]


We could once and for all determine it's age and put to rest a whole host of controversial topics/theories and conjecture. However, having said that, if the dates do in fact come back conflicting with each other and by a wide margin then this may prove to be a major game changer...

As Always, Stay tuned.

The problem is, how else would the testing take place?

Egypt, and it's hidden hierarchy of rulers who don't want the history being researched, has put this on itself. If the proper precautions were taken place and the correct procedures were followed then why hasn't this been tested already? Is there something to hide? Does Egypt know something the world shouldn't know?

I support their cause and they did what they had to do. They didn't "vandalize" the pyramids in any sense, or literally. They took a scrape sample and I'm sure a small one at that. To say they "vandalized" the pyramid is akin to the people who actually robbed the sites or those who literally painted the walls with "ancient" paint signifying someone else's name under whom the pyramid wasn't even built just to pass on a lie written down in a book.


oh wait....that is what happened before this and is what these guys tried to prove.

I do not understand how proving Colonel Howard Vyse a fraud would discern the true age of the pyramids construction. Surely all this does is show Vyse to be a man of rather ill repute.

Also has anyone done any dating analysis on paint sources from the pyramids already?

Wasn't there a television show similar/relating to this years ago? sending a robot up a shaft to a dead end, blocked by what looked like a stone door with a copper handle?
Interesting..
And I agree to the above poster,it's ok to remove bodies and loot but take a few bits of sand off the pyramid is a nono? facepalm

Bellor
I do not understand how proving Colonel Howard Vyse a fraud would discern the true age of the pyramids construction. Surely all this does is show Vyse to be a man of rather ill repute.

Also has anyone done any dating analysis on paint sources from the pyramids already?

First off, it would prove that it was a fraud. Second, Khufu/Cheops 'Building' of the pyramid and it's time frame would be called into question because that's really one of the few links to him as the builder. Thirdly, The new markings have been hidden since the construction and are in a location nobody has been able to reach until modern times and those should be tested then compared to the other controversial one in the relief chamber.

I'll accept the dates if testing was transparent for all to see...

20 years to build the Great Pyramid OR 20 years to refurbish the exterior of a much older relic from a now forgotten Civilization?

For the record and I've said this before: I do not believe in 'Atlantis' but rather in the possibility of Ancient now forgotten Civs scattered around the globe along those now submerged Ancient Ice age coast lines...

Honestly I don't have any sympathy for those guys. The next time some legitimate archeologists want to examine the pyramids I imagine it will be that much more difficult to do so because of their actions.

SLAYER69

Bellor
I do not understand how proving Colonel Howard Vyse a fraud would discern the true age of the pyramids construction. Surely all this does is show Vyse to be a man of rather ill repute.

Also has anyone done any dating analysis on paint sources from the pyramids already?

First off, it would prove that it was a fraud.

Given that Vyse absolutely recorded a glyph that at the time was unknown, to maintain that he was a fraud requires one to believe that he was a psychic fraud.

SLAYER69
Second, Khufu/Cheops 'Building' of the pyramid and it's time frame would be called into question because that's really the only link to him as the builder.

Since the glyphs cannot possibly be frauds, this is a vacant argument.

However, what are we doing here, suspending the knowledge we are all already aware of?

You know, I'm sure, that the carbon (left from the burning of limestone into lime) found in the mortar of the Great Pyramid has already been subjected to two, different and independant investigations, both of which put the age of the mortar within a hundred years or so of what Egyptology believes to be the actual construction date.

So, are we supposed to ignore this fact, pretending that the date range is not actually known?
Lastly, the sample taken by these criminals was too small for C14 testing - that's what I read about it last year, anyway.

SLAYER69
Thirdly, The new markings have been hidden since the construction and are in a location nobody has been able to reach until modern times and those should be tested then compared to the other controversial one in the relief chamber.

You mean the chambers which themselves were completely sealed off and could only be accessed after the use of black powder to blow them open?

Harte

reply to post by Harte


All of which depends on the legitimacy of the claims of the period.

I'd thought you of all people wouldn't mind the testing to prove once and for all the true age...?

Im fairly open minded about the age of the pyramids and the concept of Atlantis, to be honest im almost certain humanity existed as a near global civilization at one point in time, probably prior to the last ice age and it could may well be that oral traditions of Atlantis tens of thousands of years old have survived throughout various cultures changing radicaly over time, we just dont know for sure.

But still I am just not convinced this empirically discerns the age for its construction in any way or would even remotely show who the original builders could may well have been.

You forget it's not JUST the Great Pyramid that proves the age of construction by Khufu. Quarries, (the Mokattam formation), the worker villages, numerous artifacts inside and out of the GP that firmly connect it's construction to Khufu. There's an established sequence, or evolution, of stone-built pyramids (Imhotep, Djoser, etc.) that you would have to disprove as well.

A study by archeologists in the 1980's of the Giza quarries (among them Mark Lehner) (labeled MDAIK 41, 1985) helps connect the GP to the 4th dynasty.

To "pluck" just one pyramid out of the sequence of construction of all the pyramids is bad science. I don't know if it's "new ageism", "ancient alienism", "Sitchinites", "Atlantienism", "Pyramidiots" or what, but you'll have to deconstruct of whole lot of science, and not just attack the rep of one 19th c. archeologist, to prove the GP is somehow vastly older than it's siblings on the Giza plateau.


ETA: Forgot to link to this: A peer-reviewed paper on the building stones of ancient egypt; covers the 128 known quarries of AE
UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology - Building Stones (PDF)

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


The Giza quarries are for which Pyramid? The Great Pyramid or the Second Khafre one at the site? Also, Are the Giza Quarries large enough to completely build one, or the other, or both? The Second pyramid is however filled in with mostly rubble they could have been used for the outer shell. Were those quarries used for the construction of the second one or simply to refurbish the exterior of the Great pyramid during Khufu/Cheops period or later for the second later Khafre Pyramid?

I know what Egyptology says. I read their views all the time. I still question it though.

Where is Scott Creighton when you need him?

I bet he has a few things to say about this....

Ask any archaeologist what their opinion on the age of the pyramids are and they will give the accepted rough age of them. Ask them if they think they are older and they will most likely not have a straight answer, because they don't know!
The thing about archaeology is that it was never recognized as a 'science' until recently, it was more of a hobby that got out of control and organized itself because discovering our past is very important to explain origins and even understand our future.

It's actually widely known that the pyramids took way longer to make than the pharaohs life span, and no evidence of mummies ever being found in there, and it's also widely known that pharaohs were extremely jealous of one another and always tried to get rid of their predecessor from history. So, the notion that the pyramids are much older than we know, yes they most likely are, but the final product we see today IS the correct date. It doesn't mean that they weren't built on top of something much, much older. Humans have a tendency to do that, if you look at cities like Mexico city, or York you can literally dig down ten feet and find very old artifacts. There is even a museum in York where it takes you down some 50 feet and you can see the strata all the way back to when it was first settled, to the top where it's paved roads and walls. Go to any city in Mexico that was built before 1920 and you can see in the houses skulls and interesting animals from stones that were stolen from Mayan buildings.

There is even stones that were found on the foot of the pyramids that were found to be taken from another building. So it was an ongoing renovation really.
Much is still a mystery surrounding these structures, it's just unfortunate that the Egyptian government doesn't allow a lot of the people with fascinating theories to go in and study, they seem to ONLY want Egyptian archaeologists to do the research, which is very biased.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I have to hand it to those guys.

They wanted answers, they didn't want to go through channels that might have been compromised.

They did it on their own!

*applause*

Grimpachi
Honestly I don't have any sympathy for those guys. The next time some legitimate archeologists want to examine the pyramids I imagine it will be that much more difficult to do so because of their actions.

If the entirety of Great Pyramids were exposed and not marked off limits to public, maybe there wouldn't be such vandalism occurring from within?

I mean, if I wanted to research these out, I should be allowed to explore every part inside the pyramid, no? But the government or other agencies want classified secrets kept from public at all cost...much like Area 51. You can see a stone wall, but you won't be allowed to see what is kept behind it.

There are lots of conspiracies behind these giant structures...so I don't blame these two men for trying to prove a theory no one explored yet.

SLAYER69
reply to post by Harte

 

All of which depends on the legitimacy of the claims of the period.

I'd thought you of all people wouldn't mind the testing to prove once and for all the true age...?

Why should I believe that it would be "once and for all?"
The "once and for all" testing has already been done - twice - and it's not good enough for you.

Harte

SLAYER69
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

The Giza quarries are for which Pyramid? The Great Pyramid or the Second Khafre one at the site? Also, Are the Giza Quarries large enough to completely build one, or the other, or both? The Second pyramid is however filled in with mostly rubble they could have been used for the outer shell. Were those quarries used for the construction of the second one or simply to refurbish the exterior of the Great pyramid during Khufu/Cheops period or later for the second later Khafre Pyramid?

I know what Egyptology says. I read their views all the time. I still question it though.

edit on 21-2-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Scientists question this all the time, that is the nature of science. Any new scrap of information that is uncovered gets thrown into the mix to further refine a theory.

Would you reject 99% of the information out there, collected by tried and true science, that connects the GP to Khufu, to latch onto some dubious claim by Sitchin regarding Howard-Vyse in order to reject the age of the GP?

Since you asked "Are the Giza Quarries large enough to completely build one, or the other, or both?"

The answer is yes, the GP quarry is large enough to provide the material for the GP:

Volume in cubic meters
Khufu pyramid - 2,590,000
Khufu quarry - 2,760,000

The GP quarry is immediately adjacent to the GP. There's also an artificial harbor dating to Khufu's/Khafre's time, which was used to transport tura limestone, Aswan granite, and materials to the site (gypsum, wood, etc.). A massive temple complex, worker villages, cemeteries, etc.

To give an example of the wealth of information connecting the GP to the 4th dynasty, there was a study/survey done in 1989 by AMBRIC, American-British Consortium, that uncovered an Old Kingdom settlement covering 200 hectares of the Giza plateau, portions of which the Geat Pyramid and causeway covered, strongly suggesting obviously the GP came later.

The tool markings on the stone used in the GP and the small amounts of remaining casing is identical to the tool markings found on the other stone pyramids of that era.

If you want to doubt the age of the GP, then you have to doubt the age of every other pyramid built from the time of Djoser.

Blackmarketeer
Scientists question this all the time, that is the nature of science. Any new scrap of information that is uncovered gets thrown into the mix to further refine a theory.

Tell me something new.

Would you reject 99% of the information out there, collected by tried and true science, that connects the GP to Khufu

Quote all the evidence connecting it Khufu..

Please

to latch onto some dubious claim by Sitchin regarding Howard-Vyse in order to reject the age of the GP?

Nice try, I think Sitchin was a crackpot.

Don't try to associate him or anybody else with this thread please.

Next implied attempt?

Since you asked "Are the Giza Quarries large enough to completely build one, or the other, or both?"

The answer is yes, the GP quarry is large enough to provide the material for the GP:

Volume in cubic meters
Khufu pyramid - 2,590,000
Khufu quarry - 2,760,000

OK, so you quoted the estimated volumes of the Pyramids but have not yet provided supporting evidence.

Again, Nice try

The GP quarry is immediately adjacent to the GP

Yes, most of us already know that. Show us where it states it's large enough to support the idea that it supplied all the stones for the Pyramids. Please.

There's also an artificial harbor dating to Khufu's/Khafre's time, which was used to transport tura limestone, Aswan granite, and materials to the site (gypsum, wood, etc.). A massive temple complex, worker villages, cemeteries, etc.

Yes, Many of us are aware of those too. Are you going someplace with this?

To give an example of the wealth of information connecting the GP to the 4th dynasty, there was a study/survey done in 1989 by AMBRIC, American-British Consortium, that uncovered an Old Kingdom settlement covering 200 hectares of the Giza plateau, portions of which the Geat Pyramid and causeway covered, strongly suggesting obviously the GP came later

The tool markings on the stone used in the GP and the small amounts of remaining casing is identical to the tool markings found on the other stone pyramids of that era.

'Strongly suggests" Are you reading what they write? Could that simply be evidence of the work done during a possible refurbishing at that period and not the actual building?

If you want to doubt the age of the GP, then you have to doubt the age of every other pyramid built from the time of Djoser.

Why?
Because the present paradigm dictates it so?

You - and Sitchin - are both doing precisely the same thing - cherry picking evidence to support a pet theory.

What it comes down to, Howard-Vyse discovered a piece of evidence that firmly establishes the GP as built during the 4th dynasty.

Sorry Charlie. Evidence does not support your theory. That means your theory is wrong. Rejecting 99% of the evidence that refutes your pet theory, latching on some dubious claim that does, is not science, it's pseudo-science.

---

Now, you support your pet theory by doubting the GP could be built during the reign of a single Pharaoh. I have to wonder, were you aware of theories that contend Khufu and Khafre were co-regents?

Blackmarketeer
You - and Sitchin - are both doing precisely the same thing - cherry picking evidence to support a pet theory.

Why are you trying to interject that crackpot?

What it comes down to, Howard-Vyse discovered a piece of evidence that firmly establishes the GP as built during the 4th dynasty.

Then it shouldn't be a problem then to have it tested right?