It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 3

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer


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

BM: 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:


SC: “Normally be read”? How would Vyse know this? This was essentially an alien language to him. Vyse wouldn’t have known if there was a difference in meaning to a hieroglyph being written vertically or horizontally hence why he would have copied it exactly as he saw it.

Why then in Vyse’s private journal does he draw glyphs exactly as they appear, even when the glyphs are entirely upside-down and yet fails to draw this cartouche (and its crew name) with the correct orientation? Like these:



And why does Mr Hill draw every one of his facsimile drawings (22 out of 24 that I have been able to check) with the correct orientation (some right-side up, some upside down, some rotated 90 degrees) with the exception of the very same two drawings that Vyse also draws with the wrong orientation? These two men drew all other drawings from these chambers with the correct orientation and yet they BOTH somehow managed to get the SAME TWO DRAWINGS with the wrong orientation.

Now you might be entirely happy to explain this away as some bizarre oversight occurring to both men in getting the same two drawings wrongly orientated, but I don’t—not when they got all the others correct. What this tells me is that they found this Khufu cartouche (the ‘master’ source) elsewhere outside the GP and that it WAS orientated horizontally and that it WAS devoid of lines in the disc—and THAT is why it APPEARS as though they copied it ‘wrongly’ in their journals and facsimile drawings to what we see in Campbell’s Chamber today. The rotation of the ‘master source’ (as seen in Vyse’s private journal) to the vertical position in order to inscribe the cartouche over a gabled trussing in Campbell’s Chamber was to be their undoing. Had Mr Hill inscribed this cartouche (and crew name) HORIZONTALLY into Campbell’s Chamber then this fraud would likely have gone entirely undetected.



BM: 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;


SC: Indeed. And yet they wrongly recorded vital aspects of the Khufu cartouche as well as missing vital detail.


BM: 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.


SC: Really? Were you with Vyse in 1837? Did he tell you that?


BM: 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.


SC: The cartouche is there. The end ‘rope’ is there. The snake is there. The quail chics are there. The disc is there. Two dots are there (why these two dots and none of the others remains a mystery). Vyse draws what he believes are all the essential elements of the cartouche—except he entirely MISSES the essential element of the hatched lines. It is one thing making a representative or rough drawing of something—it is an entirely different issue when one misses out a very obvious element of what one is supposed to be copying. And he does it in his private journal not once but TWICE. Now you may be happy to put this down to a simple oversight—I am not and I rather think many others will take my view. If the lines were there why not make a doodle or rough drawing of them? Vyse didn’t because they WEREN’T there. They were only added after Vyse realized (from his visit to the Tomb of the Trades) that the lines were required—and he then had them added. That is what all his deliberations in his private journal of 16th June 1837 were about.


BM: 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.


SC: “Careless? In a hurry?” Forget the mind reading, what does the evidence tell us? Vyse tells us, in his own words, that he “minutely examined” Campbell’s Chamber for hieroglyphic marks. That doesn’t sound too much to me like someone who was “careless” or “in a hurry”.

I am dealing with and trying to explain the actual evidence whereas you are merely attempting to ignore and dismiss it with wholly untenable and unreasonable assertions. But if that makes you feel better—fine. Go for it. Just don’t expect the rest of us to follow.

Whether you like it or not, accept it or not, Vyse’s private journal and Hill’s facsimile drawings raise a number of serious questions concerning the hieroglyphic markings Vyse claims in his published book to have ‘found’ in the GP. You can kid yourself on that these questions don’t exist but, well, you would just be kidding yourself on, wouldn’t you.

SC


edit on 27/9/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 27/9/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

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


SC: You're "deceiving" yourself, laddie. If you think Hawass wouldn't give his eye, teeth to have a reliable method to date ancient artifacts to within 100 years, then you are seriously kidding yourself. Of course he would. Are you seriously trying to say that if a C14 date is not within 100 years (of the archaeological date) then the date, according to Hawass, is "imaginary"? Really? Doesn't that then mean that the C14 dates given for the GP must, according to Hawass, be "imaginary" i.e. not real because they are not within 100 years.

Stop being so absurd. Hawass just doesn't support C14 dating--"Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology... carbon dating is useless." Seems pretty emphatic to me--in ANY context.

SC
edit on 27/9/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Oh my you've completely lost it haven't you Scott.

lol



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


SC: “Normally be read”? How would Vyse know this? This was essentially an alien language to him.


Previously you've posted Vyse was an expert enough in hieroglyphics and hieratic scripts to create forgeries. Now you're telling us hieroglyphics was an alien language to him, so much so he wouldn't even know how to properly orientate a cartouche? Even with a rudimentary understanding of hieroglyphics archeologists know the orientation based on the side the knot is in the cartouche, something Vyse and his colleagues were well aware of in 1837.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton
Right. Context doesn't matter a bit. Then why not provide a bit more of it for us? Like the part where you provided only ellipsis. Like where he was referring to precise dynastic dating?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 9/27/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


Hawass just doesn't support C14 dating--"Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology... carbon dating is useless." Seems pretty emphatic to me--in ANY context.


And yet is was Hawass who signed off on the Great Pyramid Dating Project, circa 1984 and 1995 that you continually ignore.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Scott Creighton


SC: “Normally be read”? How would Vyse know this? This was essentially an alien language to him.


Previously you've posted Vyse was an expert enough in hieroglyphics and hieratic scripts to create forgeries. Now you're telling us hieroglyphics was an alien language to him, so much so he wouldn't even know how to properly orientate a cartouche? Even with a rudimentary understanding of hieroglyphics archeologists know the orientation based on the side the knot is in the cartouche, something Vyse and his colleagues were well aware of in 1837.


You are forgetting Scots rule number 33: What he says only applies to the post above it. He reserves the right to change his mind anytime he wants as long as it applies only to the post he is replying too.....lol



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Oh my you've completely lost it haven't you Scott.

lol



SC: Alas, "lol" won't crack it for you.

SC



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer


BM: Previously you've posted Vyse was an expert enough in hieroglyphics and hieratic scripts to create forgeries


SC: Really? Show me.

Didn't think so.

SC



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Scott Creighton


SC: “Normally be read”? How would Vyse know this? This was essentially an alien language to him.


Previously you've posted Vyse was an expert enough in hieroglyphics and hieratic scripts to create forgeries. Now you're telling us hieroglyphics was an alien language to him, so much so he wouldn't even know how to properly orientate a cartouche? Even with a rudimentary understanding of hieroglyphics archeologists know the orientation based on the side the knot is in the cartouche, something Vyse and his colleagues were well aware of in 1837.


You are forgetting Scots rule number 33: What he says only applies to the post above it. He reserves the right to change his mind anytime he wants as long as it applies only to the post he is replying too.....lol


SC: Stop personalising this discussion. If you have something useful and relevant to say about the topic in hand then by all means say it. Otherwise take it elsewhere.

SC



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

This image you've posted from your Web site alone is proof enough of your deceptive attacks on Vyse:



You claim that Vyse did not draw the Khufu cartouche in his journal in the proper orientation (i.e. vertically). Then to bolster your argument you show how Vyse did draw a cartouche from the Tomb of the Trades (the one you outlined in red), which does have a vertical orientation, correctly in his journal. BUT - do you not see that the Khufu cartouche in Campbell's Chamber is not written "vertically," but is rather turned 90° on its side? Vyse wrote it as it should be read, horizontally, with the birds orientated properly up and down. It is NOT a vertical arrangement of hieroglyphics but a horizontal arrangement turned on its side.


edit on 27-9-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Oh my you've completely lost it haven't you Scott.

lol



SC: Alas, "lol" won't crack it for you.

SC


Why pretty much everything you written in these threads is LOL. Do you think anyone but fringe believers are deceived by your taking things out of context? Do you think making this stuff based on taking stuff out of context will have any effect?

It won't and that earns you a large LOL.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

SC: Stop personalising this discussion. If you have something useful and relevant to say about the topic in hand then by all means say it. Otherwise take it elsewhere.

SC


I would suggest you reflect on what was said, it was the truth - you do that and have been doing it for years. That is a statement of fact.

Here is what I suggest you do:

Stop making up stuff and insisting we take it as real evidence. You are putting out nonsense and expecting us to react to it like its real, it isn't. It isn't the evidence that is doing that YOU are or more correctly your ego is making you do this stuff, this isn't science it someone trying to sound like they talking science and failing.

You want to have a scientific discussion. Then have one. You haven't so far.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

This image you've posted from your Web site alone is proof enough of your deceptive attacks on Vyse:


That image also shows the markings within the circle, which he repeatedly has said aren't present in the journal drawings....
edit on 9/27/2014 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

The explanation for which could hardly lead to a conclusion of fraud. Egyptologists in the year 1837 had little more than 10 years of understanding hieroglyphics, and very little was known of the spelling of khufu's name (and none of his Horus name). Vyse was led to believe the correct spelling was with an empty circle or a circle with a dot in it (a "solar disk"). The hatched circle (the "sieve") was new to him and other leading experts of his day. It's discovery resulted in some of them not believing Vyse's discovery until they had gone to the relieving chambers and seen it for themselves. It had further been corroborated by later discoveries by Lepsius and Flinders-Petrie as a correct spelling.

Now I'm not a mind reader, but I expect Vyse's discoveries of these differences caused him some consternation over why they were so slightly different, perhaps working out the spelling as found (with sieve) and as expected (with solar disk) in his journal notes. He even copied the Khufu cartouche from the Tomb of the Trades which does use a solar disk and not a sieve, that is the cartouche drawn vertically in the page from his journal and posted above.


That image also shows the markings within the circle, which he repeatedly has said aren't present in the journal drawings...


They are present in his journal. The page with Vyse's sketches have been posted several times.
edit on 28-9-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune


H: I would suggest you reflect on what was said, it was the truth - you do that and have been doing it for years. That is a statement of fact.


SC: And I suggest you ditch the blinkers that are making you so hostile to anything that remotely contradicts your cosy world of mainstream Egypt-apology where everything is neatly in its place and properly explained. If you really believe that, laddie, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.


H: Here is what I suggest you do:

Stop making up stuff and insisting we take it as real evidence.


SC: “Making up stuff”? You mean like the contradictions in Vyse’s private diary? You mean like the contradictions in Hill’s facsimile drawings? Those, laddie, are very REAL contradictions in very REAL pieces of evidence and are there for anyone (without mainstream blinkers, of course) to observe.

Get with the programme, laddie—and stop burying your head in the sand. These are very REAL questions that need to be answered here rather than be casually dismissed in the manner that Egypt-apologists often do when they CAN’T actually answer the questions. But in that I can honestly say, I am unsurprised.

If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, then you’ll have to learn to act accordingly. You haven't so far.

SC



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer


BM: This image you've posted from your Web site alone is proof enough of your deceptive attacks on Vyse:


SC: Really? Let’s see, shall we.


BM: You claim that Vyse did not draw the Khufu cartouche in his journal in the proper orientation (i.e. vertically). Then to bolster your argument you show how Vyse did draw a cartouche from the Tomb of the Trades (the one you outlined in red), which does have a vertical orientation, correctly in his journal.


SC: Yes—he has, as you can see, copied the glyphs from the Tomb of the Trades EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR. That’s the point—exactly as they appear. Why didn’t Vyse rotate any of these drawings 90 or 180 degrees like he has done with the Khufu cartouche (and crew name) he copied into his private journal? And why did Hill make the VERY SAME 'mistake' with the VERY SAME glyphs?


BM: BUT - do you not see that the Khufu cartouche in Campbell's Chamber is not written "vertically," but is rather turned 90° on its side?


SC: Of course, I see that. I have said to you repeatedly that the 'master source' was originally aligned horizontally, copied that way and then the copy flipped 90 degrees in order for it to be inscribed over a single block—the gabled roof trussing in Campbell's Chamber. And it was originally inscribed there by Hill WITHOUT any of the hatched lines in the disc (the 'master source' would have had an unhatched disc and two accidental markings under the snake glyph).


BM: Vyse wrote it as it should be read, horizontally, with the birds orientated properly up and down. It is NOT a vertical arrangement of hieroglyphics but a horizontal arrangement turned on its side.


SC: Yes, we know that. But Vyse, unlike his other drawings, has NOT drawn it exactly as he saw it; exactly as it appears, has he? And, as I have also said to you previously, there are other drawings in Vyse’s private journal where he has drawn the individual glyphs entirely upside-down thereby correctly representing the markings in the chamber exactly as he observed them. So why wouldn’t he have done the same here; why didn’t he draw the cartouche (and crew name) exactly as he saw them?

And why miss out some of the essential elements—the three hatched lines in the disc? If he had observed the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber, there is no way he could have missed them as he tells us that the chamber was “minutely examined” for hieroglyphs. He made a rough drawing of the two (questionable) dots, so why not roughly sketch in the three lines? Why entirely leave out an essential element of the cartouche--TWICE only to finally write it correctly on his third attempt? And why all that deliberation in his private journal on the 16th June, 1837 about blank disc versus hatched disc?

SC

edit on 28/9/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)


edit on 28/9/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
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)?


Creighton,

What radiocarbon evidence do you have of this alleged already ancient structure?

Explain to us how multiple samples from different locations failed to pick this up. Expain to us how samples from between exposed core blocks failed to pick this up. Tell us how extensive these “repairs” are supposed to have been, as it sounds like they must have been very extensive indeed, amounting to a complete replacement of the exterior of the structure, to some depth into its core.

Merely repeating someone else’s bad idea like a mantra (and it is someone else’s idea—you are as usual repeating what someone else has said, without properly crediting the source) and ignoring all rebuttals doesn’t make it a good one. Just like Alford’s, this one is an ad hoc evasion. All you’re doing here is ducking, diving and dogmatising.


originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

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.


We’re taking it up with you, Creighton. You’re the one who brought it up and you’re the one harping on it.

He said that you’re using Hawass as a straw man. You didn’t need to demonstrate it.

M.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
SC: Yes—he has, as you can see, copied the glyphs from the Tomb of the Trades EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR. That’s the point—exactly as they appear. . . .


Without any lines in the disc, you mean?

You know, Creighton, the basis on which you’d have us believe that Vyse added lines to an unlined disc copied from some other source.

M.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hanslune
SC: “Making up stuff”? You mean like the contradictions in Vyse’s private diary? . . .


Contradictions in a diary you can scarcely read? Good example: you are making up stuff.

M.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join