The Great Pyramid Hoax - New Evidence of Forgery in the Great Pyramid

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Scott:

done reading. hmmm, that is interesting. if true, has anyone ascertained why vyse would want to credit khufu with building, rather than refurbishing, the structure?

and what of the cartouche i linked (see inset)? that's neither blank nor does it contain 3 hatched lines (Khufu), nor does it contain a dot (Re). it's a single line, rising from the border of the circle itself, ending at midpoint of the circle, like a radius of a circle in geometry. the circle itself, looks a bit odd, as if it were drawn twice, like vyse's double bordered circle. and the color is different than the rest of the hieroglyphs in the cartouche. perhaps evidence that the circle has been modified in some way, at some point since its original creation and the second time, the red ochre mixture was not the same shade as when the glyph was originally put in there, resulting in a variation in the color of the CIRCLE specifically. this may be evidence that the circles in the glyphs were tampered with AFTER their creation.




edit on 4-8-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

The following two sources regard the composition of ancient Egyptian red ochre paints:

RADIOCARBON DATES OF OLD AND MIDDLE KINGDOM MONUMENTS IN EGYPT, by Georges Bonani, Herbert Haas, Zahi Hawass, Mark Lehner, Shawki Nakhla, John Nolan, Robert Wenke, Willy Wölfli
Samples sizes of organic matter were 8cm or more. Example, testing the non-organic gypsum mortar required finding bits of charcoal of that size for adequate testing.

RADIOCAREON DATING AND EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY, Stuart Manning
Gives a history of the use of radiocarbon dating for ancient Egyptian sites, it's uses and challenges. Very insightful. Most sampling was done on straw, grass, or reed found suspended in mortar or in situ where it's provenance lends itself to dating a site. Charcoal required larger sample sizes because the pre-treating with acids often degraded them (hence the AERA tests of 84-95 required the larger sample sizes of charcoal in the gypsum mortar.)

Referring back to the cited work I posted previously, over the composition of red ochre paint, the scientific analysis of those found in numerous sites, which the author painstakingly charted in tables, is that it made of red ocherous clays or red iron oxide, without the use of binders, and applied dry or wetted. What use would a binder be needed for anyhow, for something as transient and utilitarian as a mason mark or guideline? So how, then, do you expect a radiocarbon test to be done on an inorganic material? There is no chance of finding chunks of charcoal in red iron oxide paint. Acid washes used to treat samples would all but certainly destroy and paint chips, and that would only be true for those containing an actual binder (usually colors other than reds and yellows).

Having said that, I notice you do not try to argue the evidence, but rather try to argue over semantics.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: mstower


Consider the usual litany: “Test the paint!”

Several problems with that, but in the real world, it’s not in my gift to arrange it (so why tax me with it?) and after Görlitz and Erdmann, it’s never going to happen.

But suppose for the sake of argument that it did and the result came up Old Kingdom. What’s to stop someone piping up with something like this? “Vyse found a cache of ancient Egyptian paint. He broke the vessels containing it and had Hill and Raven pound the dried-up paint into powder. Then they added the purest water they could find (distilled) and used the resulting paint for the forgery.”

I can see nothing stopping someone saying this. Indeed why should they not?


Which has been pretty much their reaction to the radiocarbon test of the pyramid itself, which proved it's an Old Kingdom edifice. Instead of acknowledging the test results, a definitive proof of the type they are always demanding, they chose to ignore it..



Hi BM,

Well, let's see what the former head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt, Dr Zahi Hawass, has to say on the matter of C14 dating:


Hawass remains categorical in his rejection of the [C14 dating] technique: "Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology... carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Dr Zahi Hawass (Egpyt Independent, 8th July, 2010) From here.


SC: So that's the view of one of your own guys on C14 dating - it's "useless". Can you tell us why we should doubt or ignore Dr Hawass who has probably had more ancient artifacts C14 tested than anyone else on the planet and so is probably talking here from experience?

Hawass's opinion notwithstanding, I am sure that modern science has a lot more in its arsenal that it can bring to the table to assist us in determining the authenticity of these markings.

Regards,

SC
edit on 4/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
wait, this is odd. the picture of the cartouche up on the gabled ceiling appears to be the same cartouche as the one in the photo i linked, however, the circle has changed and is a darker color in the one i linked. is the photo i linked photoshopped or is that a different cartouche? how odd.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Oh my Scott still trying to lead people astray with out of context quotes? lol same old Scott I see!

For lurkers here is more info to give you the context of what is being discussed.



Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of 100 years. In order to date Egyptian dynasties, we need to have specific dates; you cannot use carbon dating," Hawass explained to Al-Masry Al-Youm. "This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition.”


The quote that Scott 'quoted mined' is from the article dealing with using C-14 dating to help with determining the timing of dynasties........

What was the point you were trying to make Scott?


Oh and let me know when they find a way to test when non organic paint can be tested when it was USED.

I look forward to your PM

lol

edit on 4/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Oh my Scott still trying to lead people astray with out of context quotes? lol same old Scott I see!

For lurkers here is more info to give you the context of what is being discussed.



Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of 100 years. In order to date Egyptian dynasties, we need to have specific dates; you cannot use carbon dating," Hawass explained to Al-Masry Al-Youm. "This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition.”


The quote that Scott 'quoted mined' is from the article dealing with using C-14 dating to help with determining the timing of dynasties........

What was the point you were trying to make Scott?


Oh and let me know when they find a way to test when non organic paint can be tested when it was USED.

I look forward to your PM

lol



Hanslune,

No one is being misled. The full source of the quote was given by me in my post for anyone to go check for themselves.

If Hawass had a reliable method of obtaining C14 calibrated dates that agreed with dates (within 100 years) of other methods of dating then he would most likely give his right eye and both front teeth to have. Is Hawass seriously saying that if only he can date the Great Pyramid to within 100 years using C14 dating then the method is okay?

Well, let's think about this ...... has the penny dropped yet?

But this is all merely a distraction and does nothing to answer the anomalous entries in Vyse's handwritten journal (the actual topic of the thread in case you missed it). Any ideas how we might get to the bottom of that?

And who said the paint in the chambers of the Great Pyramid does not contain organic material (i.e. an organic binding agent)? Has it been tested? Do you know that? Can you show us the results?

Thought not.

SC
edit on 4/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

You do realize that quote doesn't appear anywhere on your linked source?

The exact quote in the article is:


“Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of 100 years. In order to date Egyptian dynasties, we need to have specific dates; you cannot use carbon dating," Hawass explained to Al-Masry Al-Youm. "This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition.”


Now reviewing the book linked earlier, RADIOCAREON DATING AND EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY by Stuart Manning, it goes over in detail the evolution radiocarbon dating has gone through in use in Egypt. Call Hawass old school, but he had good reason back then to be wary of C14 dating, which had been to prone to errors to be reliable. That has changed in the last few years, per Manning.

Read the introduction to this paper, C14 was regarded by many experts, not just Hawass, as having too little reliability for their fields of study, at least until better methods were developed by the mid-2000's. Early (70's-80's) testing had not yet developed the method of atmospheric calibration, so dates were off considerably.


But sadly there have been at best limited attempts to provide such better quality radiocarbon data for the periods after the Archaic-where increasingly good data exist. Instead, publications by leading Egyptian chronological specialists concerned with the 3rd through earlier 1st mil­lennia BC in the late 1990s through 2003 largely dismissed or ignored radiocarbon evidence; with Kitchen stating that ''science cannot solve the intricate problems of detailed Egyptian successions, and the cross-links with the neighbouring Near East; texts alone can do that." Such scholars cannot see any use for radiocarbon dating versus the believed-in dating accuracy and precision available from textual evidence.


Having read this paper I can agree with these sentiments that becoming overly reliant on C14 dating could cause more confusion than help, when dating needs to be precise to the year when dealing with the chronology of dynasties and their successions. Even if such dating is off by a single year. Because this method can never be considered 100% certain due to the potential for contamination, it's only suitable for generalizing a date range, especially for periods where there is no textual evidence of dates.

Ultimately though this is a moot point as far as the red ochre paint of the mason marks is concerned as it is non-organic, and the chamber it is found is has been heavily contaminated over the years by soot and black powder residue.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Are there any ancient/historic texts in which the information regarding the time period of the construction of the Great Pyramid was handed down, orally or writtenly, through culture and society?

There is a decent amount of Egyptian hieroglyphics and artifacts, and civilizations interacted with Egypt for thousands of years, is there no found discussion in any of histories more ancient texts which press upon the history of the Great Pyramid/s?



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ancient literary sources include Thutmose, Herodotus, Manetho, Pliny, Diodorus, Josephus, Strabo, and others. This was off the top of my head. Manetho wrote a "History of Egypt" in the 3rd c. BC, Herodotus also wrote a History, of course these men lived 2,000 years after the fact, but even then the story of the pyramids had filtered down through the ages.

Thutmose IV's stelea credits the pyramid to Khufu, circa the 18th Dynasty, about 1,000 years after Khufu and Khafre. He knew little of it's actual history, by then Giza and it's necropolis was buried in sand and forgotten, but the name by which he knew the Sphinx incorporated 'Khaf,' and the narrative of his stelae relate the GP was built by Khufu.

A temple dedicated to Isis was built by one of the Queen's Pyramids along side the Great Pyramid in the 18th Dynasty, it's priests were known collectively as "Priests of Isis" and "Priests of Khufu" (though to the 26th D.), a good indicator that the name Khufu was connected to the Giza necropolis.

From the Khufu Wikipedia entry:


At the end of the 18th dynasty a temple for the goddess Isis were built at the satellite pyramid G-I-c (that of queen Henutsen) at Khufu's necropolis. During the 21st dynasty the temple got extended, during the 26th dynasty the extensions continued. From this period of time several priests of Isis, which were also priests of Khufu, worked here. The so-called Inventory Stela, created at the end of 26th dynasty, tells the story about the founding of the Great Pyramid and that Khufu was the builder. From the same dynasty a golden sealing ring with the name of a priest Neferibrê was found at Giza.


About that ring belonging to the priest Neferibrê, circa 26th Dynasty, it included a cartouche of Khufu.

Historiography is the study of historical writings, by studying what contemporaries to historical events wrote, even if they contained bias or were erroneous, we can still learn a great deal regarding those events, especially when evaluated against other historical writings. Surely not everything Herodotus can be taken as fact, but it gives us great insight into what was accepted as fact or beliefs in his era.
edit on 5-8-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Oh my Scott still trying to lead people astray with out of context quotes? lol same old Scott I see!

For lurkers here is more info to give you the context of what is being discussed.



Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of 100 years. In order to date Egyptian dynasties, we need to have specific dates; you cannot use carbon dating," Hawass explained to Al-Masry Al-Youm. "This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition.”


The quote that Scott 'quoted mined' is from the article dealing with using C-14 dating to help with determining the timing of dynasties........

What was the point you were trying to make Scott?


Oh and let me know when they find a way to test when non organic paint can be tested when it was USED.

I look forward to your PM

lol



Hanslune,

No one is being misled. The full source of the quote was given by me in my post for anyone to go check for themselves.

If Hawass had a reliable method of obtaining C14 calibrated dates that agreed with dates (within 100 years) of other methods of dating then he would most likely give his right eye and both front teeth to have. Is Hawass seriously saying that if only he can date the Great Pyramid to within 100 years using C14 dating then the method is okay?

Well, let's think about this ...... has the penny dropped yet?

But this is all merely a distraction and does nothing to answer the anomalous entries in Vyse's handwritten journal (the actual topic of the thread in case you missed it). Any ideas how we might get to the bottom of that?

And who said the paint in the chambers of the Great Pyramid does not contain organic material (i.e. an organic binding agent)? Has it been tested? Do you know that? Can you show us the results?

Thought not.

SC


Can you show that the red ochre in the chambers - or anywhere from a similar time - has organic material in it? That shouldn't be hard for you to find - should it?

I'll be waiting for your PM on the matter

And yes you deliberately posted a misleading quote and hoped no one would check the source, we did and you were caught (again). You think you would learn that no one trusts a single thing you say, lol, which by the way is YOUR fault.

I'd suggest in future if you are going to make misleading posts using quote mining to do a better job at it.

As to the OP what is left to discuss that hasn't been discussed to death elsewhere?

wink



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Hanslune,


HL: Can you show that the red ochre in the chambers - or anywhere from a similar time - has organic material in it? That shouldn't be hard for you to find - should it?


SC: And around the merry little circle we go. We won’t know the chemical composition of that red ochre paint (Mograh) until we test it, will we? I’m all for that, are you? Is Hawass?

In fact, there is some suspicion that the marks in the Khufu cartouche oval have already been tested as samples appear to have vanished from the cartouche oval some time between 2004-2006 when Hawass was in charge. (This is long before Erdmann and Gorlitz). Now ask yourself—why is Hawass so vehement in his objection to the radiocarbon dating method when it can, allegedly, date organic material to within 100 years? As stated earlier, Hawass would give his front teeth to have such an 'accurate' dating method (so long as it is consistently reliable, of course). Why is he so against its use in archaeology?

Well, let’s have a think about that. Perhaps Hawass, who has most likely sent more artifacts to be dated using this method than anyone on the planet, just didn’t get back the results he was expecting. Suppose, for example, the Khufu cartouche is fake (as the evidence presented in the OP strongly suggests) and was created by Vyse & Co. in 1837. If Hawass did indeed take these missing samples from the cartouche oval between 2004-6 to have C14 tested and the date came back 1737, what else is Hawass going to think? Yes, the C14 date returned is within 100 years of 1837 (and, from a scientific perspective, spot on) but for Hawass it is “useless” just as he has stated in the linked article. What if other tests cane back with even more bizarre dates like, for example, 16,880 BCE? (I have found evidence at Giza that suggests a date of around 16,980 BCE for the construction). What is Hawass going to think of that? Yes, C14 dating is “useless”.

The point is that the science may well be correct and sound. It’s the Egyptologist’s paradigm and chronology that may well be wrong. But they will insist the science is wrong rather than their paradigm. With his scathing attack on the C14 dating method, Hawass, imo, is merely positioning himself for when the truth does eventually come out.

But we will never know the truth until such time as an independent group of scientists are allowed access to the material and to test it in an open and transparent manner. With the uncertainty surrounding these marks presented in the OP (and with much more evidence pointing to fraud to come), I think it is imperative that science is allowed access to sufficient samples to test (if it hasn't already been done clandestinely by Hawass, of course).


HL: I'll be waiting for your PM on the matter


SC: Why do you think I need to PM you on this?


HL: And yes you deliberately posted a misleading quote and hoped no one would check the source, we did and you were caught (again). You think you would learn that no one trusts a single thing you say, lol, which by the way is YOUR fault.


SC: I am sure people can make their own minds up on the piece of text quoted and the entire article which I also linked to. Sure, I am going to quote misleading text that anyone, including you, can check in an instant from the rather convenient link I also provided. Don’t you think there is something a tad wrong with your logic there?


HL: I'd suggest in future if you are going to make misleading posts using quote mining to do a better job at it.


SC: And I suggest you put the breaks on your little smear campaign (for that is all it is and, seemingly, all you have in your locker) and return to the actual topic of this thread. Is it so difficult?


HL: As to the OP what is left to discuss that hasn't been discussed to death elsewhere?


SC: Well, I was hoping for YOUR perspective, not anyone else's. Don’t be shy now.

SC


edit on 5/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer


BM: You do realize that quote doesn't appear anywhere on your linked source?


SC: Try reading the last paragraph in the article.

SC



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

“No one is being misled.”

This despite all your efforts.

M.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hanslune

Hanslune,


HL: Can you show that the red ochre in the chambers - or anywhere from a similar time - has organic material in it? That shouldn't be hard for you to find - should it?


SC: And around the merry little circle we go. We won’t know the chemical composition of that red ochre paint (Mograh) until we test it, will we? I’m all for that, are you? Is Hawass?


What does Hawass have to do with it do you mean Mohammed Ibrahim, but didn't you claim earlier that it had been dated?
lol. Sure all you have to do is pay for I mean pull out your wallet - if you want to prove something that Sitchin couldn't then you are going to need to be proactive aren't you?


In fact, there is some suspicion that the marks in the Khufu cartouche oval have already been tested as samples appear to have vanished from the cartouche oval some time between 2004-2006 when Hawass was in charge. (This is long before Erdmann and Gorlitz). Now ask yourself—why is Hawass so vehement in his objection to the radiocarbon dating method when it can, allegedly, date organic material to within 100 years? As stated earlier, Hawass would give his front teeth to have such an 'accurate' dating method (so long as it is consistently reliable, of course). Why is he so against its use in archaeology?


Please stop telling fibs Scot we already covered what he was talking about (you know context) he was referring to using C-14 in dating dynasties where the accuracy isn't sufficient


snip a bunch of nonsense


see comment above


SC: Why do you think I need to PM you on this?


To demonstrate that after all these years you got something right of course - that would be earth shatteringb


SC: I am sure people can make their own minds up on the piece of text quoted and the entire article which I also linked to. Sure, I am going to quote misleading text that anyone, including you, can check in an instant from the rather convenient link I also provided. Don’t you think there is something a tad wrong with your logic there?


Yep you attempted to deliberately misrepresent - something you are unfortunately well know for.


SC: And I suggest you put the breaks on your little smear campaign (for that is all it is and, seemingly, all you have in your locker) and return to the actual topic of this thread. Is it so difficult?


I would suggest you try to act honestly and stop misrepresenting information so that your very large ego can stay inflated - remember that is your problem not ours. Please work on that



SC: Well, I was hoping for YOUR perspective, not anyone else's. Don’t be shy now.


Recycled Sitchin drivel with some lipstick on it - anything else? Oh wait its time for you to insist that it is: (Paraphrased)

"isn't it possible that this happened the way I say".

Yep about as possible as you being Benito Mussolini's great grandson - which is also possible isn't it?


Wink
edit on 7/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: mstower
a reply to: Scott Creighton

“No one is being misled.”

This despite all your efforts.

M.


Exactly!



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hanslune

Hanslune,


HL: Can you show that the red ochre in the chambers - or anywhere from a similar time - has organic material in it? That shouldn't be hard for you to find - should it?


SC: And around the merry little circle we go. We won’t know the chemical composition of that red ochre paint (Mograh) until we test it, will we? I’m all for that, are you? Is Hawass?

I don't see what possible difference it could make.

Because of sample size requirements, the entire cartouche would be required for a sample, and likely a lot of the other glyphs along with it.

Not to mention the paint is on limestone, which is rife with truly ancient carbon.

Not to mentiion the soot and other organic grime that has been deposited in those chambers by a century of intruders.

Harte



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
i just had an idea from harte's post.




Not to mentiion the soot and other organic grime that has been deposited in those chambers by a century of intruders.


wouldn't there be stuff on the outside of the rocks from being exposed to at least air?

could someone compare the surface to the inside of the rock?

dating the rock itself does no good, even if it was accurate.

one needs to find out when it was cut, right?
no one would cut a rock and leave it lying around for a couple thousand years without using it right away, i think.

i'm one that believes the pym's are way older than we're told.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hanslune

Hanslune,


HL: Can you show that the red ochre in the chambers - or anywhere from a similar time - has organic material in it? That shouldn't be hard for you to find - should it?


SC: And around the merry little circle we go. We won’t know the chemical composition of that red ochre paint (Mograh) until we test it, will we? I’m all for that, are you? Is Hawass?

I don't see what possible difference it could make.



SC: You may not see but scientists may well see. We won't know until we allow them in there.

SC



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I got here from the second thread Part deux and haven't read this one yet.....
methinks ill wait for the book and get it all at one shot....that's one sale you are assured of at least....thanks Scott!



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mr Mask
I am not wrong in thinking this is bad practice.
MM

Regardless of the T&C of any site, you should always know what you're clicking on.

It's against the law to steal a car, but you don't leave your doors unlocked with the keys in the ignition overnight and assume that everyone will follow the law and leave your car alone, correct? It all goes back to the old phrase "Better safe than sorry". No harm in exercising safe web browsing habits, whether on a Windows machine, a Linux machine, or a Mac. Believe it or not, there are plenty of malicious things that can be done to a Mac through web browsing. Ever heard of "Flashback" or "Flashfake"? If not, it would be worth a few minutes or research. No need to feel violated, look at it as a reminder as to why you should always be sure of what you're clicking on.


As to the topic in the OP, I have to agree that the presentation was a little confusing, and the order in which it was presented seemed...a little backwards. Interesting information nonetheless.





new topics




 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join