The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 3

a reply to: Scott Creighton

This is why the selecting and drawing of these two random dots is so odd and why it suggests a different 'master' source for the Khufu cartouche we find in Campbell's Chamber of the GP today.

A different master source ?

Hm...not so sure about that, but who knows.

Do those dots make any case for the GP being built in Khoufu's era ?

I mean...trying to put my self in shoes of the drawing authors...if it doesn't make their case stronger for some reason, which escapes me, it could be a simple case of one transcribing from the other...thus making the same mistake the first did. The first author could have been thinking that the dots are irrelevant to the cartouche, as in being accidental splashes, and decided not to draw them. Leaving only two dots as a reference to the cartouche having red splashes. That's playing the devils advocate a bit.

The main thing for me would be to see the explanation from the authors, or current gate keepers. The significance of the dots by their own reasoning...and if there is none...why draw just those two ?

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Scott Creighton

This is why the selecting and drawing of these two random dots is so odd and why it suggests a different 'master' source for the Khufu cartouche we find in Campbell's Chamber of the GP today.

A different master source ?

Hm...not so sure about that, but who knows.

SC: Let us look a little more closely at the cartouche Vyse drew in his private, handwritten journal:



Image 1: Khufu Cartouche drawn in Vyse's private journal.

And the cartouche (lower section) in the actual chamber that Vyse is supposed to have copied into his journal:



Image 2: Actual cartouche (lower part) of Khufu in Campbell's Chamber of Great Pyramid.

Notice two things about the above cartouches:

1) Unlike the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber (image 2), the cartouche in Vyse's private journal (drawn TWICE in Vyse's private journal), has none of the cross-hatched lines in the disc.

2) Unlike the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber (image 2), the cartouche in Vyse's private journal has been drawn horizontally whereas the actual cartouche in Campbell's is vertical. In all of his other cartouches and other hieroglyphs from these chambers that Vyse drew in his private journal, he always maintained the correct orienation of the hieroglyphic drawing he was observing--except for this one cartouche (and its crew name). Mr Hill ALSO drew the cartouche horizontally when that is NOT how it appears in the chamber. Mr Hill ALSO drew every other of his drawings with the correct orientation (22 out of 24 that I was able to cross-check). He drew the Khufu cartcuche and its crew name on two separate facsimile drawings and BOTH with the wrong orientation--just as Vyse did.

Why?

What I suggest we are actually looking at in Vyse's private journal (image 1) is a copy of the 'master' cartouche (and crew name) found by Vyse somewhere outwith the Great Pyramid and which was used to copy into Campbell's Chamber. This original 'master' had been aligned horizontally (hence why both Vyse and Hill drew it that way) and did not contain any of the cross-hatch lines in the disc. Only later when Vyse found some other Khufu cartouches (at the Tomb of the Trades) did he realise that the blank disc he had drawn in his diary (and had placed in Campbell's Chamber) needed the three hatched lines. You can see his deliberations over this issue in his journal entry of 16th June, 1837. See the Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 1 (PDF download).

Why did Vyse and Hill both draw this cartouche horizontally when it is vertical? And why did Vyse draw it initially in his diary without any of the cross-hatch lines in the disc? Given that he "minutely examined" Campbell's Chamber and given that he apparently saw the two very small paint spots in the cartouche, how is it possible that he missed the much more obvious detail of the hatched lines in the disc (image 2) in Campbell's Chamber?

It is my contention that the cartouche we find in Campbell's Chamber today was copied from a 'master' Vyse and Hill found somewhere outside the Great Pyramid. This 'master' had ONLY two small markings under the snake glyph and because there were only two such marking, Vyse and Hill wrongly believed they were part of the king's name and faithfully copied them (along with the cartouche and crew name) into Campbell's Chamber. And this explains why they copied ONLY those two dots--because on their 'master' cartouche there were only two such markings and, as such, they (wrongly) believed them to be relevant.

Regards,

SC

edit on 23/9/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

But wouldn't it have been easy to make the dots distinct, if it were an attempted hoax? The evidence presented seems to point more to the crime of bias, not hoax. Of course that is a conservative idea, which may not be true, but it does seem like a clumsy attempt at a hoax.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Why did Vyse and Hill both draw this cartouche horizontally when it is vertical? And why did Vyse draw it initially in his diary without any of the cross-hatch lines in the disc? Given that he "minutely examined" Campbell's Chamber and given that he apparently saw the two very small paint spots in the cartouche, how is it possible that he missed the much more obvious detail of the hatched lines in the disc (image 2) in Campbell's Chamber?

It is my contention that the cartouche we find in Campbell's Chamber today was copied from a 'master' Vyse and Hill found somewhere outside the Great Pyramid. This 'master' had ONLY two small markings under the snake glyph and because there were only two such marking, Vyse and Hill wrongly believed they were part of the king's name and faithfully copied them (along with the cartouche and crew name) into Campbell's Chamber. And this explains why they copied ONLY those two dots--because on their 'master' cartouche there were only two such markings and, as such, they (wrongly) believed them to be relevant.

Regards,

SC

Interesting theory Scott. You may have something. If we take you theory as fact...what would than be explanation for all those other "dots" around and inside the cartouche. If the master cartouche had only two dots below the snake glyph...why would they (Hill, Vyse) draw all other dots in to the Campbell's chamber. What would be the purpose ? And why would they draw it vertically since the original they saw was apparently horizontal ?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Mario: Interesting theory Scott. You may have something. If we take you theory as fact...what would than be explanation for all those other "dots" around and inside the cartouche. If the master cartouche had only two dots below the snake glyph...why would they (Hill, Vyse) draw all other dots in to the Campbell's chamber. What would be the purpose ?

SC: If Vyse & Hill later learned that the two dots they had painted into Campbell’s Chamber (from their ‘master’) were, in fact, a mistake and not actually part of the King’s name, then to ‘mask’ their error they would simply add in other randomly placed dots of paint. It could be also that they were not sure that the two dots under the snake glyph they had found on their ‘master’ were actually relevant to the king’s name but copied them anyway (just in case they were) and then added some other random dots to make the whole thing ambiguous (in case they weren’t) i.e. covering all bases.

Mario: And why would they draw it vertically since the original they saw was apparently horizontal ?

SC: Precisely. Because every other drawing they did in diaries or in facsimile drawings has the correct orientation. Some glyphs in these chambers of the GP are upside-down and that is how Vyse and Hill drew them. Some are rotated 90 degrees and that is how Vyse and Hill drew them. In other words—in all of their other drawings they ALWAYS maintained the correct orientation in their drawing as to how the glyphs were actually presented in the various chambers. Except for this cartouche (and its crew name).

The combined length of Mr Hill’s facsimile drawings of the Khufu cartouche and crew name is about four or five feet. If this were split over a number of blocks then it would be obvious it was a fake. To ensure it was placed on just one block then it was rotated 90 degrees and placed on one of the gabled roof trussings of Campbell’s Chamber which are long enough to accommodate such a long inscription.

In the final part to 'The Great Pyramid Hoax', I will be releasing further, never before seen, evidence from Vyse’s handwritten journal in which he writes an instruction to two of his assistants to place very specific hieroglyphs inside the GP at a very specific location.

In short, these glyphs are a 19th century fraud, perpetrated by Howard Vyse, a known fraudster.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

So you completely reject the testimony of the Egyptians themselves, as recorded by Herodotus?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Scott Creighton

So you completely reject the testimony of the Egyptians themselves, as recorded by Herodotus?

SC: A number of things here.

1) How does presenting evidence that suggests these painted marks in the GP are a 19th Century hoax disprove the notion that Khufu built the GP? All it does is suggest the glyphs are fake.

2) Herodotus doesn't tell us 'Khufu built the GP'. He tells us 'Suphis' built the GP. How does Suphis transliterate into Khnum-Khuf (the supposed proper name of Khufu)?

3) There are other ancient Egyptian texts (preserved by the Arabs) that tell us the Pyramids were built by Saurid to protect against a coming deluge.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I can see a lot of differences between Vyse's sketch and the actual cartouche. Clearly Vyse was not attempting to make a verbatim, photographic copy but rather just a doodle of it. You keep implying that because this doodle/sketch is not identical in every exacting detail to the cartouche that it is somehow a scandal or fraud. Sheesh.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Scott Creighton

I can see a lot of differences between Vyse's sketch and the actual cartouche. Clearly Vyse was not attempting to make a verbatim, photographic copy but rather just a doodle of it. You keep implying that because this doodle/sketch is not identical in every exacting detail to the cartouche that it is somehow a scandal or fraud. Sheesh.

SC: Doodles? If that is the best defence you can muster then it simply doesn’t cut any ice, I’m afraid.

Vyse tells us he “minutely examined” Campbell’s Chamber for hieroglyphic markings. Both Vyse and Hill copied every other marking in these chambers accurately, so why not these? These ‘doodles’ would form the basis of Vyse’s published book. It would be imperative to accurately record what he saw as, being inexperienced in hieroglyphs, he couldn’t be sure what was relevant to an inscription and what was not relevant. It’s not like he could just nip down the road to check them again when back in the UK.

Imagine if you were to copy a set of Chinese glyphs (of which you have little or no understanding) for a book you would later write—do you make just a rough drawing of these Chinese glyphs? No—you copy them as accurately as you can for the very fact that you don’t know what you are copying, because it is alien to you. The slightest wrong stroke or marking could render a completely different meaning so you are very careful to draw exactly what you see. Vyse would have been exactly the same with ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

And for ‘doodles’ it seems very peculiar that Vyse would be careful and detailed enough to record the two small dots under the snake glyph but then entirely miss the much more obvious detail of the three hatch lines in the disc when he was minutely examining this chamber for glyphs. And why, if these are just ‘doodles’, does Vyse finally decide to draw it correctly? Could it be something to do with the fact that, having visited the Tomb of the Trades, he finally observed a number of Khufu cartouches with hatched lines in the disc?

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Creighton,

Present your evidence that the discs in the cartouches of Khufu in the “Tomb of Trades” actually are lined. I really think you should do this, seeing as how I can’t see the lines in photographs and relatively recent epigraphy (Giza Mastabas series) fails to show them—and seeing as how you’re making this speculation and innuendo about the “Tomb of Trades” a foundation of the pitiful handwaving and guff which passes in your book for argument.

Funny also that you fail entirely to mention Perring. You know, John Shae Perring, whose drawings really were the main basis of the illustrations in the published work (including that part of the overall opus published in his name)—and guess what? The lithographs based on Perring’s drawings aren’t photographically accurate either. Funny how that inaccuracy was allowed through.

Funny how you should make this counterevidential hoo-haw about Vyse and co. copying things accurately—and then promptly present this risible scenario of Vyse frantically editing the material he’d copied so carefully.

I note in passing your repeated failure to credit “the late, great Alan Alford” with the ideas you’ve cribbed from him.

M.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Doodles? If that is the best defence you can muster then it simply doesn’t cut any ice, I’m afraid.

Vyse tells us he “minutely examined” Campbell’s Chamber for hieroglyphic markings. Both Vyse and Hill copied every other marking in these chambers accurately, so why not these? These ‘doodles’ would form the basis of Vyse’s published book.

Those drawings in his personal journals ARE doodles. They are simple sketches no larger than his handwriting. Let us be realistic - he sketched these doodles in hos journal so he could work on understanding the hieroglyphic language.

Vyse did state in his book he wanted perfect renderings made of the cartouches, which is why he sent J.S. Perring in to make "facsimiles," full size drawings copying as accurately as they could the hieroglyphic inscriptions they found (even the ones they didn't know how to read). That was the best they could do in the era before cameras. Perring would serve as facsimile artist in Egypt on a number of projects.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Doodles? If that is the best defence you can muster then it simply doesn’t cut any ice, I’m afraid.

Vyse tells us he “minutely examined” Campbell’s Chamber for hieroglyphic markings. Both Vyse and Hill copied every other marking in these chambers accurately, so why not these? These ‘doodles’ would form the basis of Vyse’s published book.

Those drawings in his personal journals ARE doodles. They are simple sketches no larger than his handwriting. Let us be realistic - he sketched these doodles in hos journal so he could work on understanding the hieroglyphic language.

Vyse did state in his book he wanted perfect renderings made of the cartouches, which is why he sent J.S. Perring in to make "facsimiles," full size drawings copying as accurately as they could the hieroglyphic inscriptions they found (even the ones they didn't know how to read). That was the best they could do in the era before cameras. Perring would serve as facsimile artist in Egypt on a number of projects.

SC: Sure--just ignore every point I made to you in my previous post which entirely undermines your 'doodles' 'argument'. Even if we accept them as 'doodles', Vyse would STILL want to get his doodle as accurate as he could; he would still ensure that his doodle contained all the essential elements of the original. He would not have drawn the two small dots under the snake (which are entirely questionable as being genuinely part of the king's name) and then miss out the three much more obvious lines in disc which clearly ARE part of the king's name.

And then we have Vyse deliberating on the 16th June, 1837, whether the plain disc should have three lines or not. It's right there in his journal.

You can kid yourself with your 'doodles' response but it simply does not cut. But if it makes you feel better....

SC

PS - It wasn't Perring that made the facsimile drawings--it was Hill.

Actually, Creighton, you do not know that this was drawn on 16 June—only that it was drawn no earlier than 16 June.

It is not part of the entry for 16 June but merely squeezed into the gap between the entries for 16 and 17 June. By all means render your presentation even more risible by quibbling about how tightly it’s squeezed in: the rest of us can see that it touches the line below and overlaps a descender from the line above.

Which means it was most likely drawn after the entry for 17 June (else why not allow more space, above and below?).

And again, have you let on how small this conspicuously non-photographic sketch is?

I don’t notice you mentioning that the first set of drawings by Hill (the ones made before Campbell’s Chamber was opened) was formally witnessed by multiple witnesses who signed the sheets. The English text on these sheets is not confined to that written by Hill. This in the sane world has a bearing on the orientation of the (English) text, relative to the drawing, as the formal attestation entailed holding up the copies for comparison with the originals, with, naturally, the same orientation. Hill in this case would be following a precedent set by someone other than himself. No such constraint was operative when he was working alone in Campbell’s Chamber.

And let’s not forget that you’re angling for all of the inscriptions being fakes, in which case the formal attestation could only have been a deliberate and conscious deception, which gives Hill a very strong motive for being rigidly consistent in his procedure (to maintain the deception). It’s you who has the stronger problem of explanation here. Why did the cunning forger suddenly (and conveniently) forget to be cunning?

This is you all over, Creighton. You’re called on your partial and misleading presentation elsewhere and all you do is go to another board and repeat the cheat.

M.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
And then we have Vyse deliberating on the 16th June, 1837, whether the plain disc should have three lines or not. It's right there in his journal.

Is it really? Perhaps you’d like to quote verbatim the deliberation—otherwise we might get the idea that it’s not in the journal at all, but purely in what you’ve projected onto the journal.

It ain’t a thematic apperception test, you know.

M.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

“. . . just ignore every point I made . . . ”

LOL!

This has been Creighton’s procedure for years.

M.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Doodles? If that is the best defence you can muster then it simply doesn’t cut any ice, I’m afraid.

Vyse tells us he “minutely examined” Campbell’s Chamber for hieroglyphic markings. Both Vyse and Hill copied every other marking in these chambers accurately, so why not these? These ‘doodles’ would form the basis of Vyse’s published book.

Those drawings in his personal journals ARE doodles. They are simple sketches no larger than his handwriting. Let us be realistic - he sketched these doodles in hos journal so he could work on understanding the hieroglyphic language.

Vyse did state in his book he wanted perfect renderings made of the cartouches, which is why he sent J.S. Perring in to make "facsimiles," full size drawings copying as accurately as they could the hieroglyphic inscriptions they found (even the ones they didn't know how to read). That was the best they could do in the era before cameras. Perring would serve as facsimile artist in Egypt on a number of projects.

SC: Sure--just ignore every point I made to you in my previous post which entirely undermines your 'doodles' 'argument'. Even if we accept them as 'doodles', Vyse would STILL want to get his doodle as accurate as he could; he would still ensure that his doodle contained all the essential elements of the original. He would not have drawn the two small dots under the snake (which are entirely questionable as being genuinely part of the king's name) and then miss out the three much more obvious lines in disc which clearly ARE part of the king's name.

And then we have Vyse deliberating on the 16th June, 1837, whether the plain disc should have three lines or not. It's right there in his journal.

You can kid yourself with your 'doodles' response but it simply does not cut. But if it makes you feel better....

SC

PS - It wasn't Perring that made the facsimile drawings--it was Hill.

Sure, just keep ignoring the conspicuous truth noted by Blackmarketeer, that this small sketch is in many respects not photographically accurate. Just keep swearing blind that it is accurate and the nasty truth will go away.

It isn’t Blackmarketeer who’s kidding himself here.

M.

originally posted by: mstower
a reply to: Scott Creighton

“. . . just ignore every point I made . . . ”

LOL!

This has been Creighton’s procedure for years.

M.

Which is found in other arguments made by Creighton - for example, demanding the red iron oxide mason marks (an inorganic substance) be carbon tested but conveniently ignores that the Great Pyramid itself has been carbon tested, and found to be exclusively a 4th Dynasty construction.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

originally posted by: mstower
a reply to: Scott Creighton

“. . . just ignore every point I made . . . ”

LOL!

This has been Creighton’s procedure for years.

M.

Which is found in other arguments made by Creighton - for example, demanding the red iron oxide mason marks (an inorganic substance) be carbon tested but conveniently ignores that the Great Pyramid itself has been carbon tested, and found to be exclusively a 4th Dynasty construction.

SC: Do get your facts straight. I have asked for scientists to be allowed access to these chambers to determine what tests they might be able to perform on these markings that might help us determine their provenance. Show me where I have ever asked for iron oxide to be tested? No? Didn’t think so.

Now, if you accept radiocarbon dating as a legitimate science then you should know that the ancient Egyptians mixed fish oil, or honey or gum as a binding agent with the iron oxide and these substances ARE organic material and can be C14 dated (if you believe in C14 dating, of course). And as for the GP C14 results—we know that Khufu apparently repaired a number of structures at Giza. The GP may well have been one of them. But anyway—you seem to have placed a lot of faith in radiocarbon dating. Zahi Hawass certainly doesn’t:

"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)

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Creighton,

You were challenged with great cogency on this very board to present a concrete prospectus for scientific investigation of these marks:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the kind of thing which real scientists would do and would have to do, to have any credibility at all in making such a proposal.

You did not anywhere I’ve seen provide an answer. Instead you went quiet for quite a long time.

Sampling these inscriptions for radiocarbon testing—taking enough paint to get enough carbon—would inevitably be destructive, requiring as an absolute precondition an extraordinarily strong justification. Nowhere other than in your imagination have you presented anything approaching such a justification. You’ve asked? Get over yourself.

For the rest we have the usual Creightonisms: the tired and decontextualised Hawass quote and the borrowed fantasy of Khufu “repairing” the pyramid, which is supposed to explain away all 19 of the samples taken in the course of the original project—these samples, we may note, being taken from between exposed core blocks (not casing blocks). The repairs must have been very extensive indeed. One can only wonder how the pyramid came to be in such a state that it needed them. All of that exterior work, including presumably the casing blocks, the most extravagantly praised masonry in the pyramid. Clearly Khufu had some fine masons, just the kind of people who might be up to building, say, a pyramid.

M.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
2) Herodotus doesn't tell us 'Khufu built the GP'. He tells us 'Suphis' built the GP. How does Suphis transliterate into Khnum-Khuf (the supposed proper name of Khufu)?

Really? Herodotus tell us that Suphis built the Great Pyramid?

Perhaps you should get your facts straight.

So, when Vyse wrote the name “Suphis” in his journal, this had nothing to do with Khufu?

M.