The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 3

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what is to be gained by making it appear that Khufu built The Great Pyramid if he in fact didn't?

Is it merely that it attributes the building to someone, ANYONE at all, rather than leave it a complete and timeless mystery which would then lead to questions that "they" would rather not have to answer?

Hi Urantia,

SC: Highly speculative here but I think what we have to keep in mind is that in 1837 (the year Vyse allegedly discovered these markings in the GP) religion was still very much a part of the life of most Europeans. The Christian Church, at this time, wielded a strong influence over many affairs. This was a time when most people still largely believed that the Earth was created by God around 4,000 BCE. (Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’ was still over twenty years away). It would have been important—indeed vital--for certain groups to ensure that the first Egyptian pyramids were not older than 4,000 BCE as this would seriously undermine Creationism. Having the name ‘Khufu’ (a king dating to 2,500 BCE) painted into these hidden chambers ensured the pyramid could never be older than 4,000 BCE. Job done.

There is also the clear desire of Vyse himself to consider—he was desperate to make an important discovery. If it wouldn’t happen of its own accord, Vyse was the type who wouldn't hesitate to help it on its way.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

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.

that is a good possible explanation. If indeed there was mischief...

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).

this especially begs the question, if the Campbell's chamber cartouche is the original, why didn't they transcribe it in the correct orientation.

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.

huh...If you have these...and the diary is authentic...than you would be on the brink breaking that huge conspiracy. It would be rather damning evidence, even if there is a slight mention of planting "some" hieroglyphs.

Looking forward to that piece Scott.

Hang in there.
Mario

a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: 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.

You're spouting nonsense. Bindings agents were not used for mason marks. Mason and quarry marks were nothing more than red ocherous clay / red iron oxide, brushed on dry or mixed with water and daubed on. The Egyptians would have depleted the countryside of honey if they had used that mixed in with iron oxide as a binder, just to be used as something so utterly utilitarian as a mark on a block in a quarry.

I suspect you are purposely confusing masonry marks with the paints used in tombs and palaces, the blues, whites and golds, that required a binder (even then, not always).

We've already covered the mason marks and their composition, and why they can't be tested by radiocarbon dating:

LINK to ATS post

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).

You were challenged by Hanslune to find an example of any carbon testing done on red ochre, but you never replied. The reason is obvious - red ochre is non-organic.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

BM: You're spouting nonsense. Bindings agents were not used for mason marks. Mason and quarry marks were nothing more than red ocherous clay / red iron oxide, brushed on dry or mixed with water and daubed on.

SC: The ‘nonsense’ is all yours, I’m afraid:

“The paints used in antiquity would generally have comprised two components: a coloured pigment and an organic binder. The pigment would have either been based on an organic material derived from a plant or animal extract or an inor-ganic pigment that comprised a naturally occurring mineral or a simple compound produced synthetically. The organic binders available included gums, egg, milk or glues derived from animal sources.” – from here. (My emphasis).

And…

…some ochres used by humans may differ geochemically from their source deposits due to chemical alteration from burning, postdepositional weathering, or mixing with binders or other materials…from here.

SC: So, do tell us—how do you know for certain that the red ochre markings in these chambers have no binder? Have you geochemically analysed any of them? No? Thought not.

BM: The Egyptians would have depleted the countryside of honey if they had used that mixed in with iron oxide as a binder, just to be used as something so utterly utilitarian as a mark on a block in a quarry.

SC: Fish oil, egg white, plant gum, animal fat, blood…. the list is endless.

BM: You were challenged by Hanslune to find an example of any carbon testing done on red ochre, but you never replied. The reason is obvious - red ochre is non-organic.

SC: See above. Red ochre CAN have an organic binding agent. Over and above which, if you read the report (linked above) red ochre can be geochemically analysed and much information about its provenance can be determined from such analysis.

And let us not foget either that there has been at least one Arabic report by Dina Abdel-Alim of 'Day 7 Magazine', (The Cheops Lie) which claimed that the paint samples they took had been tested and that it was found to be only "centuries" old. You can read the article here (4th paragraph). Google translate gives this:

"...they have analyzed samples of the cartouche of Khufu and reached the result, which is that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid and that the ink used in the cartridges to jot down details constructed the pyramid is not old, but the age of the pyramid itself is larger than life, cartouche centuries, which confirms that the pyramid is not due to Khufu ..." (My emphasis).

SC: I contacted the German lab (SGS) that supposedly tested the material. They would neither confirm or deny it.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
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.

Never before seen? Aren’t you forgetting something? Has your ego finally squeezed out what’s left of your memory and tipped you over the edge into madness?

Not so long ago, when you still retained a scrap of honesty on this question, you admitted that you could barely read the journal. Now you’d have us believe sight unseen that you’ve got this bit absolutely right? I don’t think so.

Be sure and provide a full transcript of the page, so that we may (a) assess your competence in transcribing it and (b) see the material in context.

I have to admit that I could not find in the journal anything recognisable as what you claim is there. This is compatible with it not being there or not as you say it is. Given the various tasks which Vyse did assign to Hill, the likelihood of there being some wording in the journal open to misinterpretation by those as ill-willed as you are is high. Knowing the journal as I do, I regard it as a practical certainty that you’ve misread, misinterpreted or misrepresented something perfectly innocent.

I’ll remind you again that among the things which certainly do appear in the journal is this sentence (entry for 30 May): “Mr Hill was in Campbell’s Chamber copying Hieglyphics”. On your treatment of the journal, this could only be a lie, making even the private journal part of the deception. So why, pray tell us, did Richard William Howard Howard Vyse, master forger, suddenly and conveniently forget to carry through this deception? Why, again, did Vyse allow so incriminating a document to survive at all?

M.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

And let us not forget either that there has been at least one Arabic report by Dina Abdel-Alim of 'Day 7 Magazine', (The Cheops Lie) which claimed that the paint samples they took had been tested and that it was found to be only "centuries" old. You can read the article here (4th paragraph). Google translate gives this: . . .

Yes, Creighton, for the whole page, Google Translate gives this.

Readers will make their own assessment of its credibility, but I must say that your citing at this late date so silly a piece of [snipped] tabloid blather smacks of the desperation you so readily accuse others of.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
SC: I contacted the German lab (SGS) that supposedly tested the material. They would neither confirm or deny it.

SGS is a company. The “lab” is the Institut Fresenius. I am sure you would wish to know this, given how keen you are on getting the facts straight.

You’re passing off absence of denial as an ersatz for confirmation? Desperation indeed.

M.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

You've done it again - purposely confuse paints used in lavish palace or tomb art with the red iron oxide used for humble mason marks in a quarry. Notice the link you provided is a treatise on polychromy paints used in Assyria and had nothing to do with masonry marks used in Egypt. This image is from your link:



This type of painting could contain a binder, especially the blues, whites, and golds. These are found in palaces and tombs, not on the backside of building blocks or in the quarries. As I said, you keep trying to confuse this type of paint with workgang graffiti marks, which is the type found in the relieving chambers and had no need for organic binders. This type of paint was never meant to last. I've linked you repeatedly to two volumes that discuss the composition of such marks, HERE.

Now below is an example of a similar ochre mark found in a quarry in Thebes - this type of paint is similar to the relieving chamber's worker graffiti:



The above image shows a red ochre paint typically used by workers in a quarry or placed on blocks during construction of an edifice that is much different in composition than the type of polychromy paint Scott was inserting into the argument.

Now how about a text that is a little more relevant regarding these types of mason/quarry or worker marks:

Hieratic Inscriptions from the Quarry at Qurna: an interim Report

PDF file: (will open in your PDF viewer): Hieratic Inscriptions from the Quarry at Qurna: an interim Report
Shin-ichi Nishimoto, Sakuji Yoshimura, and Jiro Kondo

These inscriptions are hieratic, and like those found in the relieving chamber in the G.P., relate to the work gangs. An interesting fact, these were first noted by Petrie, but have never been carbon tested. No one has ever attempted it. Then again, they also know the futility in testing something that is not organic and does not contain organic compounds.

Another image of the quarry marks found here, remarkably well preserved from having been exposed to the elements for ages;



I'm reading a book called The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt: Scope and Roles of Informal Writings (c 3100-332 BC), which is an in depth look at the 'graffiti' used throughout Egypt. Most often just scratched into a variety of surfaces, other times daubed on with ocherous clays or iron oxides. Black marks were often burnt carbon. Red and Yellow from ochre (an oxidized iron compound). I have yet to find one instance where such iron oxide graffiti marks were carbon tested as a dating method. Relevant chapters include Hieroglyphic and Hieratic Graffiti: Egyptian Mines and Quarries.

The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt: Scope and Roles of Informal Writings (c 3100-332 BC) (scribd.com)

Reference materials:

Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, By A. Lucas, John Richard Harris, posted earlier here.

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, posted earlier here.

RADIOCAREON DATING AND EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY, Stuart Manning, posted earlier here.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

BM,

I shall try again. Present to me actual scientific analysis of the red ochre marks in these chambers that conclusively proves they were purely water-based. Let's see it.

And why are you linking to two radiocarbon dating reports that don't even discuss red ochre / organic binding agents?

As I have stated to you previously--geochemical analysis of the paint used to make the markings in these chambers can tell us much about their provenance. You even agree with that:

Vyse would have had to recreate a 4th Dynasty era red ochre paint. Referring to Ancient Egyptian Material and Industries, this was not an easy task due to the aforementioned variations of such by era. - Blackmarketeer (from here)

SC: It stands to reason then, that if a geochemical analysis of the paint shows that it is not "a 4th dynasty era red ochre paint" then it must be a hoax perpetrated by Vyse.

The POINT is that we will never know with any degree of certainty until science is allowed a sufficient sample to test. Whether scientists are ever given permission to perform a geochemical analysis is an entirely different question but until such time, given the damning evidence that has recently come to light (with more evidence to follow), these marks remain highly questionable.

SC

Its seems to me that one need not look far for the reasoning behind this type of forgery.

1. propagates the concept that egyptians build the pyramid rather than a more advanced civilzation from the distant past.

2. should the Pyramids be dated at more than 6 thousand years, it would create many problems for the christian religions Ideas of the world only 6000 years old.

In either case it would upset the apple cart.

a reply to: rken2

should the Pyramids be dated at more than 6 thousand years, it would create many problems for the christian religions Ideas of the world only 6000 years old

Innumerable archeological sites around the world already do that. Jericho dates to 9000 BC. Göbekli Tepe to 10000 BC. The list goes on and on. Why do you feel that the Great Pyramid and only the Great Pyramid has to be isolated from all these sites?

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: rken2

should the Pyramids be dated at more than 6 thousand years, it would create many problems for the christian religions Ideas of the world only 6000 years old

Innumerable archeological sites around the world already do that. Jericho dates to 9000 BC. Göbekli Tepe to 10000 BC. The list goes on and on. Why do you feel that the Great Pyramid and only the Great Pyramid has to be isolated from all these sites?

SC: Yes, and these ancient sites have only had their origins revised backwards in relatively recent times. The context here, however, is 1837 and the religious beliefs of THAT date, not what we now know today of these sites. Are you seriously trying to say that in 1837 it was known that Jericho was as old as ca.9,000 BCE or that Göbekli Tepe was even known let alone having a remote age of ca.10,000 BCE? Really?

SC

You want us to believe that any dogmatic religious views held by Vyse regarding the pyramids age has held for more than a century and a half? That all those archeologists who have studied the pyramids since then have clung to Vyse's "forgery" for the same reasons - they're all hard-core Christians who refuse to acknowledge the true age of the Earth?

Aren't you also making accusation that Vyse was a liar and cheat? So Vyse was super religious enough to want to lie about the true age of the Pyramid to conform to the Biblical age of the Earth, but not above vote fraud, is that it?

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

BM: You want us to believe that any dogmatic religious views held by Vyse regarding the pyramids age has held for more than a century and a half? That all those archeologists who have studied the pyramids since then have clung to Vyse's "forgery" for the same reasons - they're all hard-core Christians who refuse to acknowledge the true age of the Earth?

SC: You can believe whatever you like. I don’t give a hee-haw what religious beliefs people held in 1837—or since then. The fact of the matter is—had there been no Khufu or Khnum-Khuf inscriptions ‘found’ by Vyse in these hidden chambers then it would have been much more difficult for mainstream Egyptology to assert Khufu as the builder of the GP and, thus, to the era of ca.2,500 BCE. That the cartouche of a king dated to 2,500 BCE was **ahem** ‘found’ was, let’s just say, ‘happily convenient’ for the religious authorities of Vyse’s day.

BM: Aren't you also making accusation that Vyse was a liar and cheat?

SC: That is what the evidence points to.

BM: So Vyse was super religious enough to want to lie about the true age of the Pyramid to conform to the Biblical age of the Earth, but not above vote fraud, is that it?

SC: I didn’t say Vyse was “super religious”—but in referring to Bryant’s Ancient History, he did say this about the historian, Bryant:

”…no person can examine the works of the author to whom I have referred, without being convinced of the great extent of his learning, of the soundness of his conclusions, and, above all, of his profound conviction of the truth of Revelation, and of the unerring justice of the Almighty… it may with justice be observed, that the chief object of his learned inquiries, through a long and laborious life, was a zealous and humble endeavour to "assert eternal Providence, and justify the ways of God to men." – Vyse, ‘Operations’, Vol 1, p.2

You seem to have this notion that people who have a strong religious faith commit no crimes. The truth, however, is that such people quite often are guilty of orchestrating and perpetrating the very worst of crimes and often in the name of their religion. Religious zealotry knows no bounds. I am not saying this was the case for Vyse but what we can be certain of—because Vyse tells us—is that he was desperate to make an important discovery in the Great Pyramid in 1837.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

The fact of the matter is—had there been no Khufu or Khnum-Khuf inscriptions ‘found’ by Vyse in these hidden chambers then it would have been much more difficult for mainstream Egyptology to assert Khufu as the builder of the GP and, thus, to the era of ca.2,500 BCE.

You are forgetting he (along with Hill and Perring) also recorded the hieratic inscription bearing the horus name Medjedu which no one in 1837 knew of, since learned it was also a name for Khufu. Vyse et. al. weren't aware of it's royal significance as the name wasn't placed within a cartouche. This is where your claims strays into the surreal, as you have asserted Vyse et. al. simply copied these from an unknown and as yet discovered source.

As far as "mainstream Egyptology," Vyse's discovery only bolsters other data, one of the most compelling being the radiocarbon dating of the pyramid itself in '84 and '95, which confirms it is a 4th Dynasty creation.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

BM: You are forgetting he (along with Hill and Perring) also recorded the hieratic inscription bearing the horus name Medjedu which no one in 1837 knew of, since learned it was also a name for Khufu. Vyse et. al. weren't aware of it's royal significance as the name wasn't placed within a cartouche. This is where your claims strays into the surreal, as you have asserted Vyse et. al. simply copied these from an unknown and as yet discovered source.

SC: I am forgetting nothing of the sort. The king’s full titulary is often found together. If Vyse found some glyphs elsewhere outwith the pyramid and recognized ‘Khufu’ (which, by his own admission, he could recognize), then he simply copies everything he finds from that source into the chambers. He might not know what he’s copying but he does know one important thing--that whatever it says, it is most certainly related to Khufu—the one set of glyphs Vyse could recognize. The source may never be discovered but Vyse made a copy of it (twice) in his handwritten journal. Here:



SC: As you can see, the 'source' has the wrong orientation from the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber (which is vertically aligned) and has no cross-hatchings in the disc, again, unlike the cartouche in Campbell’s which has three lines in the disc. The above image is a copy of Vyse’s ‘master’ source right there in his own handwritten journal. And, as I have said before, I shall be presenting further, never-before-seen evidence in due course from Vyse’s private journal in which he writes of his instruction to his assistants to place specific hieroglyphic marks at a very specific location within the Great Pyramid.

Vyse faked these markings. No question.

BM: As far as "mainstream Egyptology," Vyse's discovery only bolsters other data, one of the most compelling being the radiocarbon dating of the pyramid itself in '84 and '95, which confirms it is a 4th Dynasty creation.

SC: And the Inventory Stele tells us Khufu repaired a number of structures at Giza. How do you know these were not mere repair works being made to an already ancient structure in the 4th dynasty?

And, as I have pointed out to you already in this thread, your confidence in C14 radiocarbon dating is not shared by Zahi Hawass:

"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

As you can see, the 'source' has the wrong orientation from the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber (which is vertically aligned)

Which is immaterial. The orientation of the cartouche and the inscriptions are like our alphabetic letters. We know which is "up" and which is "down." It doesn't matter that the cartouche was written vertically, that only shows it was written on the block before the block was placed into the pyramid.

If I wrote this on a wall:



Are you saying you wouldn't copy as it would normally be read? No, you and everyone else would simply write it as it should appear, like so:



Vyse did naturally understand the importance of capturing the precise depictions of the inscriptions and there orientations and placements, that is why he sent Perring in to make facsimiles of them. Vyse and Hill also made concise drawings of their orientations, including measurments;




Now Vyse knew which way the cartouche should be oriented as that is what the knotted end of the rope indicates. What he scribbled into his journal was not meant to be a concise and exacting replica of the cartouche but rather Vyse's doodle from which he worked out what it meant. If you want to get nitpicky, he didn't draw the snake properly (an extra hump), he dribbled three dots and not two, the birds are misshapen and he drew a circle without bothering to hatch it in. What does that mean? He was careless? In a hurry? You're not a mind reader and neither am I, you are projecting your own bias and conjecture onto his journal.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

And, as I have pointed out to you already in this thread, your confidence in C14 radiocarbon dating is not shared by Zahi Hawass

The C14 studies of the GP were conducted by AERA with the David H. Koch foundation. Their results were subject to peer review and scrutiny and still stand. You're using Hawass as a straw man, nothing more.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

"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

tsk tsk tsk, Scott you already tried this deception before, you are getting like Cladking, saying the same stuff that blew up in your face before - over and over again but still trying to use it - did you forget you already tried it and it failed?

It's why we call you SOAC Scot "outta context' Creighton, because you endlessly try to distort information by taking it out of context.

Now your message above from Hawass - in what context was he talking? He was talking about using C-14 in aiding the setting of timelines for dynasties, something C-14 isn't any good at.

Sheeesh, come on "outta context" try to deceive us with something a bit more clever....lol

a reply to: Hanslune

Now your message above from Hawass - in what context was he talking? He was talking about using C-14 in aiding the setting of timelines for dynasties, something C-14 isn't any good at.

Apparently so.

However, Zahi Hawass, Egyptian archeologist and secretary-general of the Egyptian Supreme Council for Antiquities, strongly disagrees with the use of carbon dating in archeology.

“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.”

www.egyptindependent.com...

So, if we're worried about accuracy of 100 years, not so good. Beyond that, pretty damned good.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

BM: The C14 studies of the GP were conducted by AERA with the David H. Koch foundation. Their results were subject to peer review and scrutiny and still stand.

SC: As 4th dynasty repairs or original construction? Which is it and what evidence do you have to support an original 4th dynasty construction (as opposed to repair to an already ancient structure)?

BM: You're using Hawass as a straw man, nothing more.

SC: I suggest you take that up with Hawass, not me. Little point in shooting the messenger. Hawass has probably sent more artifacts to be C14 tested than anyone alive. One can understand that if he was constantly and repeatedly being given conflicting/contradictory C14 dates for these artifacts how he would come to such a conclusion. I guess he felt it easier to trash the science than accept the contradictory dates it presented.

SC