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.

 

Fraud in the Great Pyramid - The Final Proof

page: 3
108
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
All you really need to do is read the free kindle preview on Amazon to see exactly how vacuous Creighton's "argument" is.

Harte



The tiers are particularly irregular also - I often wondered why - its something I always like to look at after receiving a dose of 'high precision claims'. I suspect it really had to do with using 'government' contractors. Hey you I need 1,234 rocks of this size.......

www.cheops-pyramide.ch...

and more details and statistics anyone would possibly want about the tiers and rocks

www.egyptorigins.org...




posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

The mainstream view, if you type in the question in google or wiki is 2.3 million blocks.

From the source you posted:




I elected to create a web site because I directly explore and develop elements that are not welcome for publication within professional journals supported by the current scholarly community. Psychological and social attitudes prevent the shattering of primitive concepts now shared in those realms.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xabi87
a reply to: Hanslune

The mainstream view, if you type in the question in google or wiki is 2.3 million blocks.


Oh my look at you defending orthodoxy! lol - They are wrong I mean can't you think outside the box?

It's a commonly held - and incorrect - idea.

edit on 6/3/19 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: ClovenSky
It is really great to see the amount of people lately that are questioning the officially presented history and are now starting to think for themselves.

I wonder how long mainstream historians will be able to keep their deceit going?


Pretty much as they have. The problem with the fringe is that the only thing they agree on is that the orthodoxy is wrong while heteroloxy cannot agree on an alternative theory to offer up.

By the way who in country writes the official history? Now that use to be the case in Communist countries but most of those are gone.



Your right any fringe theory can attack our knowledge and seem plausible. Problem is they leave things out as well or misrepresent what we do know. Like with the great pyramid everyone wants to claim there is no proof who built it. This is simply untrue we have all kinds of documentation and carvings telling us who built the pyramid and even how they did it. But most get their information from conspiracy sites so dont even know about things like the diary of Merer where he explains in detail how they shipped the stones to the site.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 04:10 AM
link   
To continue our analysis of Colonel Vyse's private journal.

A close reading of Colonel Vyse’s private and published works reveals a curious contradiction between the two texts. In his published version of events, Vyse writes the following passage describing the day, May 27th, 1837, when he first entered Campbell’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid:


Vyse, 'Operations', Vol. 1, p.277

Notice the highlighted section (in red) where Vyse writes:


”The chamber over Lady Arbuthnot’s (subsequently called Campbell’s) was opened...”


On the surface and reading only Vyse’s published account, this might not seem such a big deal. However, when we compare it with his private account of the very same day, we find something quite different:



From the above text, Vyse writes:


“...an account came that Campbell’s Chamber was opened... went into Campbell’s Chamber... as it was within Campbell’s Chamber, May 27, 1837.”


As we can see from Vyse’s private notes (above), on 27th May he was already calling this newly opened chamber "Campbell’s” so how, from the published version of events of this same day, could this already named chamber have been "...subsequently called Campbell's..." – a clear contradiction between the two accounts. And we have to ask: Why would this be? Is Vyse distorting the truth here or is there some other explanation that can perhaps reconcile these conflicting versions of events?

There’s a possibility.

On 30th May (three days after Vyse first entered this chamber) Vyse makes a drawing of Campbell’s Chamber in his private notes (see below).



It is clear from this drawing that the inscription we see there today (see Chapuis image above) had not yet been inscribed onto the granite floor block. Looking closer we observe Vyse has written onto the granite floor block in his drawing the numbers ‘2’ (left side) and ‘1’ (right side) and I will be discussing the reason for these in a future post or perhaps article. For the moment, however, it is fairly evident that on 30th May, 1837, the dedication inscription had not been placed upon the granite floor block. So how can we reconcile all of this?

If we suppose that in his published account when Vyse writes: “...subsequently called Campbell’s...” what he was perhaps referring to here was the official naming of the chamber when the dedication inscription would (subsequently) be painted onto the granite floor block. Allowing for this possibility then all of the evidence is neatly reconciled and the contradiction between private and published accounts disappears.

SC

edit on 6/3/2019 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   
In the interests of clarity, I should have added an explanation as to the peculiar shape in the middle of Vyse's drawing of this chamber (see below, right side).



If we consider a high resolution photograph of the west wall of the chamber (see below), it immediately becomes apparent what Vyse has drawn in his diagram (above) - it is the centre gap or 'channel' between the west wall blocks of the chamber with a peculiar 'hole' or erosion in one of the blocks at the top-left. See here:



Photo: Patrick Chapuis

And, in the image below, I have highlighted the relevant section:



Photo: Patrick Chapuis (my highlight)

As you can see, the highlighted area corresponds very well indeed with the shape Vyse has made of this area of the chamber in his drawing of it.


SC
edit on 6/3/2019 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Xabi87
a reply to: Hanslune

The mainstream view, if you type in the question in google or wiki is 2.3 million blocks.


Oh my look at you defending orthodoxy! lol - They are wrong I mean can't you think outside the box?

It's a commonly held - and incorrect - idea.


Here is another link to a guy who has also noted the problem with the 2.3 million number> www.touregypt.net...




For example, one may find in many books that Khufu's Pyramid, greatest of all in Egypt, contains an estimated 2.3 million blocks of stone weighing on average about 2.5 tons. In the past, both professional and amateur theorists assume that the pyramids are composed of generic blocks of this weight. Next, they set about solving the problem of how the builders could have possibly raised and set so many huge blocks. But upon closer examination, few of these traditional assumptions are really valid. In fact, recent analysis has suggested that Khufu's Pyramid has far fewer large blocks than originally supposed, and those who maintain that the blocks are more or less uniformly 2.5 tons are simply wrong.

Casing and backing stones near the top of Khafre's Pyramid, showing that casing hid considerable irregularity in the core, packing and backing masonry At first glance, the sides of the Giza Pyramids, stripped of most of their smooth outer casing during the Middle Ages, look like regular steps. These are actually the courses of backing stones, so called because they once filled in the space between the pyramid core and outer casing. However, a closer examination reveals that the steps are not at all regular. In fact, rather than regular, modular, squared blocks of stone neatly stocked, there is considerable "slop factor", even in the Great Pyramid of Khufu. Not only are the backing stones irregular, they are also progressively smaller toward the top. Behind the backing stones, the core stones are actually even more irregular. We know this because, in the 1830s,

Howard Vyse blasted a hole in the center of the south side of Khufu's's Pyramid while looking for another entrance. This wound in the pyramid can still be seen today, and in it, we can see how the builders dumped great globs of mortar and stone rubble in wide spaces between the stones. Here, there are big blocks, small chunks of rock, wedge shaped pieces, oval and trapezoidal pieces, as well as smaller stone fragments jammed into spaces as wide as 22 centimeters between larger blocks.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

If the material on this post from another forum is right, then it seems that your basic assumption must be wrong.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

If the material on this post from another forum is right, then it seems that your basic assumption must be wrong.


Hooke,

Indeed - "IF". That little word cuts both ways y'know. But I am perfectly confident my reading/interpretation of the data is correct.

SC



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Hanslune
All you really need to do is read the free kindle preview on Amazon to see exactly how vacuous Creighton's "argument" is.

Harte



Well of course!

www.amazon.co.uk...

Yeah, 2 minutes or less per block makes a lot more sense.


If you accept the 2,300,000 number of course - have you ever researched who made that number up?

Why do you believe it?

A far better number estimate if between 500-900,000. The guy who came up with 2.3 wasn't aware of the hill incorporated into the structure.


Does Your estimate include the casing stones and the time to carve the incorporated tunnels beneath that have not been fully explored so theres no way to know how long it may have taken? Heck they may have built the pyramid on the debris pile from digging that tunnel. So that "hill" may represent more labor.

But, I will concede that is speculation and that I was not aware of the hill. So therefore I hereby officially thank you for bringing that to my attention. (And a special thank you to the staff member who brought my attention to this thread by removing my inappropriate post made in jest.)

I'll take this under consideration before I repeat the wikipedia figures again.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: Hanslune




harassing people


What??? This man sounds dangerous... why isnt he in jail? I guess harassment doesnt carry a long sentence so he got out already...?

Thanks for warning me that he is a criminal. I was gonna buy copies of his books, donate to his research, spread the word about his work... but thank you for warning me that he is someone I would really rather not be involved with. I'll make sure and warn the others, giving you full credit of course. 👍


You just have to agree with him and you'll be just fine. His harassment was directed at those who corrected him. You know threatening sue people who told him he was lying about stuff - things like that.


Ah. I see.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: SLAYER69

...

20 years to build the Great Pyramid? Not likely in my book and that time frame was sourced back to the Greeks who came around about 2100 to 2200 years after the fact. 20 years to refurbish the exterior with new or polishing up the old casing stones is more believable.


Mark Lehner suggests that it might have taken 20,000-30,000 men twenty years. The AE were very organised, and had systems of corvée labour, supervised by administrators. In the Old Kingdom, labour was organised into work crews known as phyles (Roth, A.M., Work Force, Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 2001/2005).

(There are more sources on AE available here).


And they never once had an instance of delays due to weather, or a shortage of supplies... or shortage of labor due to sickness, war, famine, drought... Damn those AEs were PERFECT.


They were pretty effective indeed - perhaps you can tell us your idea of how long it took them?


I'm not sure, but perhaps we are getting off track as this is not exactly the precise topic of this thread. I'll concede I do not know.

Do you have any comments on Vyse?



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I ain't defending anything, i am just pointing it out because you usually shoot others down who think outside the box and quote them the mainstream view.



posted on Mar, 19 2019 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton
The questions I must ask is how or why did Vyse know there were chambers there if they were hidden?
Being as there was not penetrating radar at that time how did he know how many chambers were there?
Using dynamite is not an archaeologists MO, so think about that for a moment, how did he know for that first placing to open the first chamber?



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Scott Creighton
The questions I must ask is how or why did Vyse know there were chambers there if they were hidden?
Being as there was not penetrating radar at that time how did he know how many chambers were there?
Using dynamite is not an archaeologists MO, so think about that for a moment, how did he know for that first placing to open the first chamber?


Hi,

Your question is answered here.

SC




top topics



 
108
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join