Crime In The Great Pyramid: The Evidence Mounts

Hi ATS,

Continuing my research into the alleged discovery by Colonel R. W. Howard Vyse of the painted 'quarry marks' within the sealed chambers of the Great Pyramid which Vyse blasted open with gunpowder in 1837. These painted marks provide the only empirical evidence that directly connects the pharaoh Khufu to the Great Pyramid and is largely why Egyptologists today are convinced that the Great Pyramid was constructed by this king in ca. 2,500 BC when he ruled Egypt.

This article (link below) presents further evidence that strongly indicates that many of these painted 'quarry marks', including the various cartouches of Khufu, may well have been forged by Vyse's closest assistants upon the Colonel's instructions.

Crime in the Great Pyramid: The Evidence Mounts

Hope you find it at least thought-provoking.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I was under the impression that this was basically settled with all but the most stubborn mainstream scholars and archaeologists. I guess maybe that's just in the circle of scholars that I follow.

Nice article.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Good to see you back Scott! It's been a while.

It is very strange that some Pharaoh never coopted the Great Pyramid by putting their symbols all over it inside and out.

It is like it was a revered object off limits. They regularly defaced monuments and such as great leaders came and went.

With that in mind, what would cause the off limits status of the ancients to their greatest symbol of achievement?

It is fun to imagine the Great Pyramid as an antedeluvian structure. Sure there are various Pyramids that got bigger and greater till the Great Pyramid was made, but those could be antedeluvian also. The attempts after the Great Pyramid were pitiful in size. According to the Bible, in the time of Joseph, the Egyptians couldn't even figure out how to make a large sized grainery to sustain them during 7 years of drought. Someone had to show them the concept and massive scale of the project. That is just too strange for the builders of the Great Pyramid. They lost their abilities.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I think you mean to say black powder instead of "gun powder".
Black powder was used for many things other than just firearms.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

They lost their abilities.

Or maybe realized it was a waste of resources.

a reply to: Phage

A lesson we've forgotten if the Olympics and World Cup games are anything comparable. Modern major projects that leave almost every host in debt.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

They lost their abilities.

Or maybe realized it was a waste of resources.

It seems more likely that they lost their ability to organize on such a grand scale.
Besides if they didn't see any need for building anymore, why didn't some Pharaoh put his all powerful graffiti all over the Great Pyramid taking a short cut to ultimate expression of his power without wasting the resources? It should have been carved on over and over as leaders changed along with the Gods they worshipped.

As to the topic, it seems highly unlikely the builders would hide some cartouches of paint in one obscure part of a hidden ceiling and not carve them right over the sealed entrance ways. Imagine the disappointment of the guy who broke in knowing he's the first observer there in millennia only to find barren stone, not even a scribble. Wonder how much resources of his benefactors he wasted and was pressured to discover something, anything.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Yeah. Well.

I have a hard time thinking like my neighbor about some things. I won't pretend to guess at how the ancient Egyptians (much less a Pharaoh) thought.

But I understand there are a certain amount of written records.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

interesting theory!

I wanted to comment on this

The painted marks in these chambers appear in a variety of orientations from their natural upright positioning. The conventional explanation for this apparent haphazard arrangement is that, originally, the marks would have been painted onto each block at the quarry in the natural upright manner.6 The builders of the chambers, unconcerned about the orientation of the painted marks on the blocks, would have then rotated each block (with it signs) to find the most efficient means of placing it within the various chamber walls.7 (Figure 2a-b).

Now if I am not mistaken when building projects are undertaken , ones which require the quarrying and working of stones
wouldnt the blocks be cut to fit exactly in line with the architects plans!

the quarried rocks would have been cut to size and would have been cut so they wouldnt have to be rotated or flipped etc
they would have been cut to fit the exact position and not have to be moved .
Therefore they would never have to find the most efficient means to place it within the chamber walls as it would have been pre-planned !

so the marks being made in the quarry and being upside down because they had to move them to align them seems wrong!
I think this lends to the theory that the marks were made once the blocks were in place, and just tried to pass them off as quarry marks by making them upside down etc

Why go to all the effort to construct such a huge structure to have the guys figure out the best way to place a block on site , when its already been pre-planned and cut to fit perfectly from quarry to site!

a reply to: sapien82

Hi,

Yes, you make a valid point. However, there remains the possibility - however small - that a larger block might have broken into several parts in its journey from the quarries to the pyramid. Would they discard the smaller, broken block fragments or would they re-dress the sheared fragments into smaller blocks that could fit elsewhere into the structure?

At the end of the day we have to deal with what mainstream Egyptology asserts to be the truth and to demonstrate, with evidence, why their view is wrong. Personally, I have little doubt that most of these painted marks (though not all) were painted in-situ. It simply does not make sense that any AE scribe would paint in-situ marks sideways or upside-down and confine them to a single block. A careful hoaxer wishing to give the illusion that the painted marks must have been made at the quarry (i.e. when they block was upright) would do so in order to give the illusion that the marks are authentic.

But as Egyptologist, John Romer, points out:

"...the blocks that the pyramid-makers brought up from the Giza quarry were mostly set upon the pyramid with their grain place horizontally, just as it had lain within the living rock of the nearby quarry." - Romer, 'The Great Pyramid: Ancient Egypt Revisited', p.120

I see no reason not to believe that the workers responsible for the construction of these inner chambers of the Great Pyramid would not have adopted the same construction practice of laying the block grain in the chamber as it had lain for millions of years in the bedrock of the quarry.

And if the grain is lying horizontal in the chambers (as Romer's observation would suggest) then we are seeing how those blocks would have stood in the quarry. So why would the work gangs write their gang names upside-down or sideways onto the horizontal block at the quarry when it would surely have been much easier for them to write the name the right way up?

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

it's all very interesting nice work though Scott , what possible reason would the Yves have to link it to Khufu ?

was this just so he could claim the discovery ?

Sad how personal fame and glory blurs the truth of the matter
bloody humans !


Also if there is evidence that the quarried rock was all laid with the grain as it would have been sitting naturally
then isn't that enough reason for Archaeologists to open up the site for further investigation and study to prove Yves had hoaxed it and is wrong!

I know this is completely off topic , but have you any plans for a thread on the black boxes found in the serapeum ?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on those
I appreciate that if you havent considered it because of your current work requirements.

thanks

a reply to: Scott Creighton

And if the grain is lying horizontal in the chambers (as Romer's observation would suggest) then we are seeing how those blocks would have stood in the quarry. So why would the work gangs write their gang names upside-down or sideways onto the horizontal block at the quarry when it would surely have been much easier for them to write the name the right way up?

If a cube shaped block is cut from a quarry with 'horizontal grain' as you suggest.

Then 4 of the 6 sides would also have 'horizontal grain.'

If the Egyptians saw fit to paint quarry marks on a stone just why haven't any quarry marks been discovered on any of the other thousands of blocks? They had graffiti in ancient times as well.

originally posted by: crayzeed
If the Egyptians saw fit to paint quarry marks on a stone just why haven't any quarry marks been discovered on any of the other thousands of blocks? They had graffiti in ancient times as well.

Hi,

Many, many ancient 'quarry marks' have been found on stones elsewhere at Giza and beyond.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton
That is true, but not on the great pyramid. As big headed egotists that were the ancient Egyptians, apart from this "graffiti",there is literally no other marks on the great pyramid to ascribe it to any pharaoh. Not even defacing marks. If it was for Khufu or Cheops they would not be satisfied with hidden marks. There would be their cartouches all over the the pyramid bragging at their achievement.
The mainstream Egyptian archaeologists hate this with a vengeance as there is literally no proof to ascribe it to any dynasty let alone any pharaoh.

It has been postulated that Vyse had the markings made to justify the funds he received for his trips to Giza to make discoveries. The fact that the markings were his only discovery indicates it is a fraud.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Scott Creighton
That is true, but not on the great pyramid. As big headed egotists that were the ancient Egyptians, apart from this "graffiti",there is literally no other marks on the great pyramid to ascribe it to any pharaoh. Not even defacing marks. If it was for Khufu or Cheops they would not be satisfied with hidden marks. There would be their cartouches all over the the pyramid bragging at their achievement.
The mainstream Egyptian archaeologists hate this with a vengeance as there is literally no proof to ascribe it to any dynasty let alone any pharaoh.

You mean besides the hundreds of documents we found on the construction of the pyramid. Your making an argument from 50 years ago. Evidence has been found all over egypt.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Scott Creighton
That is true, but not on the great pyramid. As big headed egotists that were the ancient Egyptians, apart from this "graffiti",there is literally no other marks on the great pyramid to ascribe it to any pharaoh. Not even defacing marks. If it was for Khufu or Cheops they would not be satisfied with hidden marks. There would be their cartouches all over the the pyramid bragging at their achievement.
The mainstream Egyptian archaeologists hate this with a vengeance as there is literally no proof to ascribe it to any dynasty let alone any pharaoh.

Hi,

Actually, a number of crew names (quarry marks) have been found on the core blocks on the outside of the Great Pyramid. However, it is anyone's guess as to when they were placed there. This is why the marks found inside sealed chambers are so important to Egyptology because then no one can dispute their provenance.

Or so they thought.

SC