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.

 

Investigating the "Lost 4th Pyramid" at Giza

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


SC: These particular issues presently under discussion are already in the public domain and have been for quite some time – some even before HOAX was published.


So why, on an earlier occasion, did you pointedly refuse to discuss issues “already in the public domain” which you yourself had raised in preceding posts - on the very grounds that “I am NOT here to recite to you chapter and verse what I've written in my previous book ...”


SC: So—what’s your point?


Your inconsistency would be one.


SC: I discuss what I feel like discussing when I feel like discussing it. I don’t think there are any rules around that.


Yet when I follow a similar policy, your response is a peremptory demand that I discuss the “evidence” you want discussed, concluding with “What are you AFRAID OF?”


SC: He did no such thing (well perhaps but only in your head).


To assess for themselves the truth of the matter, all readers need do is to look.


SC: You rather conveniently leave out the responses to Dr T.


As you rather conveniently now leave out his response to your response.

However, I’m sure that readers can follow the thread if they want to.


SC: Here’s what Jon Snape had to say ...


I think you would need to find more credible sources.


SC: I don’t actually discount that these two marks cross-reference each other ...


It must have slipped your mind to mention this earlier. I omit your farrago of pure speculation.


SC: But that is my explanation for all these marks. What’s yours? Why is Vyse cross-referencing these two disks on this page? What’s the purpose of the reference strokes?


The clue is in the phrase “cross-referencing”: Vyse’s reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche, much as he keyed together two illustrations of its initial character with what may be a ‘1’ or a prime mark.

This is what is sometimes called “inference to the best explanation.” What makes the explanation better than your farrago of nonsense is simplicity, economy and consistency with just plain common sense.


SC: The simple truth of the matter here, Hooke, is that there is no logical reason why Vyse would have dawn that centre page Khufu cartouche without the striations ...


And here you go second-guessing Vyse's thoughts, which must of necessity have been in conformity with logic as you understand it - in other words, mindreading, as noted in this recently cited post of more than five years ago.

You will notice that that post comments on other things you are still parading as “evidence,” as does the following post.

Everywhere but in your head, your “Tomb of Trades” fantasy was debunked on its first appearance, before it turned up in The Secret Chamber of Osiris, never mind HOAX.


SC:At the end of the day, Hooke, we’re never going to agree on this—for sure. But as I’ve always said—all you have to do is present incontrovertible proof that the marks in those chambers are authentic and you will have falsified my argument.


Word to the wise: demanding “incontrovertible proof” debunks what you were trying to put across with “abductive reasoning” - while for those of us who discount trivial evasions, your assertions have been falsified already.

However, as has been explained to you on more than one occasion, relevant evidence has been presented in The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer. The Tomb of Trades (G 6020) is discussed in Pt. I, Ch. 13; Pt. II, Ch. 24; and Appendix 1. Your own theories are addressed in detail in Pt. II, Chs. 25 and 26.

Oh, and don’t forget the Journal of Merer. Merer headed up one of the fifteen phyles engaged in transporting stone along the Nile to the Great Pyramid prior to Khufu’s death in 2483 BC; phyles also formed the construction-crews who worked on putting the stone blocks into place at the pyramid. The cartouche of the name “Khnum-Khufu” appears as part of a crew name in Merer’s logbook; the same cartouche (as part of a crew-name) is also to be found in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber. Such consistency is considered in discussions of “abductive reasoning” to be one of the virtues of a “good” theory.




posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Hooke

[Irrelevant, flim-flam diversions and pedantry snipped]


SC: But that is my explanation for all these marks. What’s yours? Why is Vyse cross-referencing these two disks on this page? What’s the purpose of the reference strokes?

H: The clue is in the phrase “cross-referencing”: Vyse’s reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche, much as he keyed together two illustrations of its initial character with what may be a ‘1’ or a prime mark.


SC: Eh—no. Vyse clearly knew they were the “same cartouche” (i.e. the cartouche from Campbell’s Chamber). He specifically tags them both with text saying they are from Campbell’s Chamber. So why would he also need these X marks above the disks as a “reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche”?


H: This is what is sometimes called “inference to the best explanation.” What makes the explanation better than your farrago of nonsense is simplicity, economy and consistency with just plain common sense.


SC: Ahem—see above. Vyse already knows these cartouches are both from Campbell’s by labeling them as such. He doesn’t need a cross-reference ‘X’ to indicate that. Thus the ‘X’ must serve some other purpose. Any other ideas?


SC: The simple truth of the matter here, Hooke, is that there is no logical reason why Vyse would have dawn that centre page Khufu cartouche without the striations ...

H: And here you go second-guessing Vyse's thoughts, which must of necessity have been in conformity with logic as you understand it …


SC: He does this not once, but twice. On two occasions Vyse draws the Khufu cartouche in his journal without the striations. And yet in both of those cartouche drawings he is careful to add in the tiny detail under the snake glyph. We can reasonably infer from this that Vyse is detail conscious. And yet he presents no such detail within the disk of these two cartouches. The only time in his journal when we see this detail is the entry at the foot of the page in the margin, when he eventually realized it was needed (from having seen other examples of the Khufu cartouche with disk striations, most likely from sketches made by Mr Perring from TotT).


H: … in other words, mindreading, as noted in this recently cited post of more than five years ago.


SC: It’s called “abductive reasoning”, Hermione. Here:


Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction]) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations and then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely." One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation…” – from en.wikipedia.org...


SC: There are a set of observations on that page from Vyse’s private journal and I consider my explanation of them to be the best explanation—editing a cartouche. Given all the other anomalies I have uncovered with regards to Vyse’s activities at Giza, imo, the man perpetrated a fraud in those chambers. I simply present my interpretation of the evidence and leave it to my readers to decide for themselves whether they agree (or not), whether Vyse is guilty (or not).

You, on the other hand, claim Vyse is entirely innocent. You are now trying to present an alternative interpretation of this particular item of evidence (i.e. the 16th June private journal entry). That’s good—I applaud you for that effort. I am sure there will be some who agree with your ‘take’ on that page. But there will be others who agree with my interpretation of it. Merely presenting an alternative interpretation of this page will not prove my interpretation wrong. To do that you will need incontrovertible proof that the marks in those chambers are authentic. Then, and only then will you have falsified my interpretation of the evidence. You can argue all you like against my interpretation of the evidence, you can put forth your own interpretation but that will achieve precisely nothing. As stated now several times here and elsewhere, if you want to fully exonerate Vyse from these charges you need to get incontrovertible proof that all the marks in those chambers are authentic. Without that proof all we will end up doing is arguing endlessly for decades to come about who has the best interpretation of the various anomalies we find in the available evidence. I, for one, have better things to be doing with those decades.


H: Everywhere but in your head, your “Tomb of Trades” fantasy was debunked on its first appearance, before it turned up in The Secret Chamber of Osiris, never mind HOAX.


SC: You can continue to believe that if you wish, but it won’t make it true. But if it helps you sleep at night. As I briefly mentioned in a post elsewhere in this thread, even if every single Khufu cartouche disk in the TotT is blank, you STILL have to give a convincing explanation for the striations in Birch’s reassembly of Perring’s original drawing. They STILL have to be properly explained. A block cutter wouldn’t simply add those striations to those disks if they weren’t already in the source drawing since:

a) It would fundamentally change the sign.
b) It would give the cutter more work.

Those Khufu cartouches with the striated disks came from somewhere. If not the Tomb of the Trades (which is the source Vyse states in Operations), then where?


SC: At the end of the day, Hooke, we’re never going to agree on this—for sure. But as I’ve always said—all you have to do is present incontrovertible proof that the marks in those chambers are authentic and you will have falsified my argument.

H: Word to the wise: demanding “incontrovertible proof” debunks what you were trying to put across with “abductive reasoning” - while for those of us who discount trivial evasions, your assertions have been falsified already.


SC: I have always taken the view that, since all of the actors in this saga have long since departed this Earth, that it will be virtually impossible to prove Vyse’s guilt beyond any doubt. I think, however, upon consideration of all the evidence and the anomalies we find therein, it is reasonable to assert that, on the balance of probability, Vyse most probably did perpetrate a fraud in those chambers. Simply saying my “assertions have been falsified already” won’t actually make that so. If that is the case then you will be able to show where that has occurred. All of the links you have posted thus far where you claim I’ve been debunked have been found to be baseless claims that were easily countered.

----> More

edit on 19/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 05:26 AM
link   
....continued:


H: However, as has been explained to you on more than one occasion, relevant evidence has been presented in The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer. The Tomb of Trades (G 6020) is discussed in Pt. I, Ch. 13; Pt. II, Ch. 24; and Appendix 1. Your own theories are addressed in detail in Pt. II, Chs. 25 and 26.


SC: Alas, my theories are constantly evolving as new evidence surfaces and have done so since the publication of your book thus your book is most likely out-of-date.


H: The cartouche of the name “Khnum-Khufu” appears as part of a crew name in Merer’s logbook; the same cartouche (as part of a crew-name) is also to be found in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber.


SC: LOL.

SC



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

www.abovetopsecret.com...


SC: Eh—no. Vyse clearly knew they were the “same cartouche” (i.e. the cartouche from Campbell’s Chamber). He specifically tags them both with text saying they are from Campbell’s Chamber. So why would he also need these X marks above the disks as a “reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche”?

... Vyse already knows these cartouches are both from Campbell’s by labeling them as such. He doesn’t need a cross-reference ‘X’ to indicate that. Thus the ‘X’ must serve some other purpose. Any other ideas?


So, finally you acknowledge that they are both captioned as being from Campbell’s Chamber. You once had some difficulty with that and needed help on the point.

How many cartouches could there be in Campbell’s Chamber? There’s plenty of room and there is at least one other (partial) cartouche. Do try to remember that this was a recent discovery and likely not as familiar to Vyse as it is to you, after years of poring over the products of his efforts.

It was redundant (according to you) and pendantic to add this mark - so there “must” have been another reason? Doubtless a very, very wicked one. Allow me to point out that your “must” is predicated entirely upon another instance of your mindreading; sorry to have to say this, but your mindreading has no credibility whatsoever.

You seem to have forgotten (despite my recent reminder) that Vyse also keyed together two sketches (on differing scales) of the initial character. Why aren’t you querying that? It’s just as redundant.

Ahem.

More mindreading omitted.


SC: ... (from having seen other examples of the Khufu cartouche with disk striations, most likely from sketches made by Mr Perring from TotT).


Where may we see such examples? I can only regard this as puzzling, as all evidence coming from “the Tomb of (the) Trades” (G 6020, the mastaba of Iymery) shows the relevant hieroglyph without “striations,” in all instances, a point I have already supported with citations and photographs. Your response to being shown the photographic images you failed to find yourself was to wave your hands and declare that they were of the wrong inscriptions, despite their being the only ones in the evidence which match Birch’s transcription. Perhaps Perring and Vyse saw magic inscriptions, much like the magic secret cache.

To assist you further, here is the relevant epigraphy.

Giza Mastabas 5 - 1

Giza Mastabas 5 - 2

From Lepsius, Denkmaeler - 1

From Lepsius, Denkmaeler - 2


SC: It’s called “abductive reasoning”, Hermione. Here: ...


A phrase of which your use is entirely rhetorical, as here. If you knew what you were talking about, you would have picked up one or two hints in my post that I do.


SC: There are [sic] a set of observations on that page ...


Empty verbosity omitted.

Sorry, but you do not get to stipulate what counts as a refutation.


SC: You can continue to believe that if you wish, but it won’t make it true. But if it helps you sleep at night. As I briefly mentioned in a post elsewhere in this thread, even if every single Khufu cartouche disk in the TotT is blank, you STILL have to give a convincing explanation for the striations in Birch’s reassembly of Perring’s original drawing. They STILL have to be properly explained. ...


You may continue to believe that if you wish, but it won’t make it true.

It’s because it's a transcription, Scott - a "systematic representation in written form" - not an exact facsimile. It's simply not fair - in fact, it's deceptive - to persist in misrepresenting it to readers who might know no better.

This is the proper explanation. Again, you do not get to stipulate what counts as one.


SC: ... A block cutter wouldn’t simply add those striations to those disks if they weren’t already in the source drawing ...


What on earth are you talking about? It was the job of the woodcut artist to reproduce what Birch had written or drawn. Of course it was. For Birch, however, it was merely a couple of strokes of the pen. Why are you confusing the two?

Are you really going to tell us that Birch sweated blood to represent the hieroglyphs accurately?

Operations, II, p. 8, footnote.

One of the jobs of transcription is to disambiguate: to make it clear which character was intended. Two quick strokes of the pen was enough to do this, whereas it is not what we see in hieroglyphs of the period.


SC: Those Khufu cartouches with the striated disks came from somewhere. If not the Tomb of the Trades (which is the source Vyse states in Operations), then where?


The source Vyse states? Again, what on earth are you talking about?

Allow me to remind you that in December 2009 and January 2010, you were touting the cartouche of Khufu copied by Vyse in “the Tomb of the Trades” as a cartouche of “Ra-ufu.” You knew perfectly well then and you know perfectly well now that he recorded the initial character as a blank disc. The only way you are conjuring “striated disks” into “the Tomb of the Trades” is through an illegitimate inference from Birch’s transcription.


SC: ... All of the links you have posted thus far where you claim I’ve been debunked have been found to be baseless claims that were easily countered.


You would say that, wouldn’t you?

All anyone need do to assess the truth of this is to follow the links and consider the relative merits of claims and counterclaims.


Hooke: The cartouche of the name “Khnum-Khufu” appears as part of a crew name in Merer’s logbook; the same cartouche (as part of a crew-name) is also to be found in Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber.



SC: LOL.


Not sure you should be laughing: see “Ra-ufu” above. Odd how you left out the bit about “abductive reasoning” and the virtues of a “good” theory.



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
....continued:

SC: Alas, my theories are constantly evolving as new evidence surfaces and have done so since the publication of your book thus your book is most likely out-of-date.


So, all we need do is to wait, and you will debunk your theories yourself - which gives us little reason to take them seriously now.

Did you think this through before posting?

When you made this claim a year ago on the Graham Hancock Message Board, it elicited a response - and as we know, responses reliably find claims to be baseless.


Not our job to second-guess your every change of mind. Views so fickle were obviously ill-founded in the first place.


Sorry if this offends your vanity, but Strange Journey is not all about you.


Where we mention you at all, we cite sources. The views addressed are those documented.


As for you own most recent book:


On any serious criterion, HOAX is in need of pulping. At least the pulp might be of some use.


You have outlined your theory of “new evidence surfacing” in podcasts, haven’t you? To another response.

It must be said that we see little sign here of your theories having “evolved.” Same old, same old, more like.

Have you never heard of Schrödinger’s cat? This concerns:


a hypothetical cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead


If one were to open the box, one would find the cat either alive or dead. But, to find out, you first have to open the box … and, if the box isn’t opened, no one will ever know, one way or the other, whether the cat is alive or dead.

If you don’t look at the discussion of your theories in Strange Journey, you never will get to know whether you were wrong … or perhaps right all the time.



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Hooke


SC: Eh—no. Vyse clearly knew they were the “same cartouche” (i.e. the cartouche from Campbell’s Chamber). He specifically tags them both with text saying they are from Campbell’s Chamber. So why would he also need these X marks above the disks as a “reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche”?

... Vyse already knows these cartouches are both from Campbell’s by labeling them as such. He doesn’t need a cross-reference ‘X’ to indicate that. Thus the ‘X’ must serve some other purpose. Any other ideas?

H: So, finally you acknowledge that they are both captioned as being from Campbell’s Chamber. You once had some difficulty with that and needed help on the point.


SC: Hermione, I seriously suggest you get your facts straight before making stupid comments:


SC: Stower then alleges I did not see the caption "in Campbell's Chamber" in Vyse's journal entry. I suggest he did not properly read my 'Atlantis Rising' article, particularly page 70 where I write:


“...On June 16 (over 3 weeks later) he draws the plain blank disc again from the chamber (we know this because of the two dots under the snake and also because Vyse writes alongside 'in Campbell’s Chamber')."


SC: So, far from missing the caption alongside the disputed cartouche as Stower alleges, the caption is there and is used by me in the article to demonstrate the contradiction Vyse presents on this page between the two cartouches i.e. how he has drawn a Khufu cartouche with blank disk from Campbell's Chamber and then draws a Khufu cartouche with hatched disc from Campbell's Chamber. Since there is only one clearly visible Khufu cartouche in this chamber, they cannot both be right. From here.


SC: And your co-author’s response to the above:


MS: My profound apologies for missing this important point. Yes indeed, Creighton does mention this on page 70 of the magazine. From here.5



H: How many cartouches could there be in Campbell’s Chamber?


SC: Oh here we go—another desperate attempt by you to shift the goal-posts. Vyse labelled two drawings on that page as being from Campbell’s Chamber. You even agreed they were the "same cartouche":


H: "Vyse’s reminder to himself that the sketches so marked are of the same cartouche" (my emphasis).


But when that no longer suits you, you try to invent evidence. How do we know these two labelled cartouches on that page refer to the same cartouche (as you, hitherto, agreed they were):

a) There’s only one FULL Khufu Cartouche in that chamber whereby the disk can be seen. There is no other full cartouche with a disk.
b) Both cartouches he draws present the two dots under the snake glyph. There are no other Khufu cartouches in Campbell’s Chamber which present such a feature—just ONE.

We can thus reasonably infer from the evidence above that we are indeed dealing with one and the same Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber. But yeah—I understand your utter desperation.


H: There’s plenty of room and there is at least one other (partial) cartouche.


SC: Rubbish. The issue is the DISK. See above.


H: Do try to remember that this was a recent discovery and likely not as familiar to Vyse as it is to you, after years of poring over the products of his efforts.


SC: Do try and be sensible. I have to say—this is the absolute WORST defense I have ever witnessed. Seriously, I really never believed you would stoop to such complete and utter baloney. This has truly now opened my eyes to the complete futility of my even discussing this issue with you. You are now seriously trying to suggest that there might be another Khufu cartouche in that chamber with no lines in the disk!!!! You twatter on about me "mind-reading" Vyse and then you come out with this utter bull flop, trying to invent evidence that no one, NO ONE else has ever seen--not Hill, Perring, Rowe, Hawass, Schoch or Dowall. NO ONE reports such a 2nd cartouche (with blank disk) in that chamber. Get a bloody grip of yourself, Hermione!!

If that really is the best response to my point you can come up with then I consider that you are merely here to troll or to take the proverbial piss--wasting my time and everyone else’s. Until you can address my points SERIOUSLY and SENSIBLY then this discussion is over.

[snipped due to the complete and utter stupidity of your preceding comments – not wasting any more of my time with your bonkers notions].

SC

PS – for anyone who doesn’t already know, Hermione (Hooke) is a Director of the ultra-orthodox Egyptology Forum, ‘In the Hall of Ma’at’. (Which perhaps goes some way to explaining the above drivel).

edit on 20/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/2/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
35
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join