Great Pyramid Void Enigma - Excerpt#1 From My New Book

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Good afternoon Scott.. I may well purchase a copy of this book.. I've been waiting for a while now to hear new reports on this alleged cavity..

I just hope this investigation doesn't die the same death as Project Djedi... I followed Djedi very closely, including the TV special to drill through the first blocking stone... We are also aware that they drilled through the second blocking stone but the results of this were never pulicised, which was suspicious to say the least.. then the project just dissapeared and the team moved onto something new..

I was in contact with Shaun Whitehead at the time trying to find out what happened...This is the reply I got...

"Hello Peter

I am well, thank you, I hope you are too.

I have spent the last year interpreting our findings and those of others, but I feel that we still do not have the full picture. Project Djedi has been superseded. I have been taking advantage of the forced absence from Egypt to prepare a wider project that I call Glass Pyramid. You can imagine what this entails; I plan it to be the most thorough survey of the Great Pyramid ever, using the latest techniques. The authorities are very supportive, but I am afraid that we may need to wait for a while to bring it to fruition, as in the present social climate they are very sensitive about high profile projects.

I appreciate your interest in our projects.

Regards

Shaun"


Frustrating! Superceded! Why?

PA

originally posted by: anti72
we will know what is above the great gallery when teams will be allowed again to do further studies in the future.
At the moment the only reasonable engineering/ technical and mostly importantlyt he architectural theories are from Jean Pierre Houdin. His anyalysis of the inner ramp/ built from inside to outside/ building steps/ explanation of current structural elements like great gallery, cavities.
No enigmas, but rather the climax of the enormous planing, engineering and coordination abilities of the EA.
only the commercial fringe keeps on mystifiying.

The results also seem to reject the theory, put forward by Houdin and Brier, that the builders of the Great Pyramid used an internal ramp to raise blocks up to the highest levels. “These data suggest that the ramp is not there,” says Brier. “I think we’ve lost.” - from here.

SC

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: Scott Creighton

I just hope this investigation doesn't die the same death as Project Djedi... I followed Djedi very closely, including the TV special to drill through the first blocking stone... We are also aware that they drilled through the second blocking stone but the results of this were never pulicised, which was suspicious to say the least.. then the project just dissapeared and the team moved onto something new..

Hi,

If the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities find what I suspect they will find in the Big Void (The Hall of Khufu's Ancestors), then I am quite certain that Egyptology will continue to happily ignore the Coptic-Egyptian 'legend' that implies the presence of such a chamber and will, instead, find some means to 'accommodate / integrate' such a discovery into their standard tomb narrative--and all will be well with their world. When it doesn't fit, they simply move the goalposts.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: anti72
we will know what is above the great gallery when teams will be allowed again to do further studies in the future.
At the moment the only reasonable engineering/ technical and mostly importantlyt he architectural theories are from Jean Pierre Houdin. His anyalysis of the inner ramp/ built from inside to outside/ building steps/ explanation of current structural elements like great gallery, cavities.
No enigmas, but rather the climax of the enormous planing, engineering and coordination abilities of the EA.
only the commercial fringe keeps on mystifiying.

The results also seem to reject the theory, put forward by Houdin and Brier, that the builders of the Great Pyramid used an internal ramp to raise blocks up to the highest levels. “These data suggest that the ramp is not there,” says Brier. “I think we’ve lost.” - from here.

SC

well that Brier quote in an nearly 5 years old web article does not change anything from the successful work done by the scientific ScanPyramids teams.
also the inner ramp theory was somewhat confirmed in a much earlier scan study in the 80s, at least made much more probable.



hdbui.blogspot.com...

hdbui.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

Really? Even the ones that clearly match similar markings found by remote cameras in and around air shafts that haven't seen human eyes since the thing was built? That's some pretty enthusiastic fakery.

Hi,

See The Great Pyramid Hoax (Bear & Co, 2016). pp.50-56

SC

Doesn't really answer the question, particular with the new marks found where no person except those building the thing could get to them.

again, no 'enigma' there..and no news.
these are numbers left over from the construction, the lenght of the shaft.



the commercial fringe does not give you that information.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: zatara

...

It is really weird that the one really responsible for the build did not bother to engrave his name in there somewhere which would pass the test of time just like his creation does..

...

Cartouche names of Khufu appear in the relieving chambers (as components of work crew, aperu, names, and also in the second boat pit (on the underside of the sealing stone, and elsewhere); as well as in other locations on the Giza Plateau.

There's a more detailed explanation and discussion of pyramid construction in the Old Kingdom here; and also some discussion of royal cartouche names in Appendix 1 (vol. 2) here.

I think what Zatara is referring to are official ("engraved") inscriptions within the monument, of which there are none. The contentious so-called 'workers' graffiti do not qualify in that regard so your mentioning of them in the context of Zatara's point about official markings of Khufu is odd. Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

SC

Bit late to the misunderstandings but...you understood me correct and explained to our fellow ATS brothers and sisters precisely what I meant.

Humans will be humans and in our time we have the "urge" and pride to tell generations in the future about our significant accomplishment....and why not, spare future generations the debate we have now about who, what and when.


The Hoover dam is such an accomplishment. The people who are responsible for the structure probably know that it can be found thousends of years in the future and decided to tell those who live then what it is and when it is built by means of a language scientist will understand.

There is even a memorial for the people who got killed during the effort. You can read all about it HERE

There is still much to discover in and outside the pyramids on the Giza plateau and who knows will we stumble some day upon an official plaque with all the info we so "desperately" would like to be confimed. (if zahi hawass will not take that evidence home and bury it in his garden). And maybe we are on the right track with the analysis of Robert Bauval about the when.

And I agree...having that cartouche somewhere writen by a worker at a place where nobody is expected to go is not good enough evidence for me. The out of proportion unrest that occured when these germans were accused of taking a sample of the material this cartouche was written with only confirms my doubts. What are you afraid of mr hawass...if you are a serious scientist with the progress of egyptology at heart you should welcome such initiatives. Well...I think that Dr Robert Schoch proved that these allegations were false...but thats an other thread. But then again...somebody took a sample...why is hawass not taking a sample and proof his theory for once and for all.

a reply to: zatara

Indeed, It is true that on Captain Vyse first entering the relief chambers above the kings chamber there was no mention of this Cartouche or any other markings... they were discovered the next day... Which gave Vyse and his accomplices ample time to forge them...

All very suspicious in my opinion... And the only real evidence we have that this building was built by Khufu... (Except for one small figuirine found in the general location of the pyramid..)

There is also the fact that the kings name is spelt incorrectly and that only recenlty have we discovered our translation error, subsequent to Vyse entering the chamber...

PA

(Scott Creighton)

I think what Zatara is referring to are official ("engraved") inscriptions within the monument, of which there are none. The contentious so-called 'workers' graffiti do not qualify in that regard so your mentioning of them in the context of Zatara's point about official markings of Khufu is odd. Those crudely painted khufu markings you refer to are not official inscriptions at all and the considerable body of available evidence strongly suggests that they are almost certainly 19th century fakes.

- (Zatara)
Bit late to the misunderstandings but...you understood me correct and explained to our fellow ATS brothers and sisters precisely what I meant.

For a comment on the lack of formal inscriptions within the GP, see this comment by another ATS poster.

(Zatara)

..having that cartouche somewhere writen by a worker at a place where nobody is expected to go is not good enough evidence for me.

Why not?

The inscription was effectively an instruction to a particular team of workers that they were to deal with such-and-such a block, as well as any other blocks that bore their particular name (of which Khufu's name effectively formed a part).

Why isn't this evidence good enough?

(Zatara)

The out of proportion unrest that occured when these germans were accused of taking a sample of the material this cartouche was written with only confirms my doubts.

The character from which Gorlitz and Erdmann removed samples that anyway were not large enough to test properly was not a hieroglyph in the cartouche name of Khufu, but another one, U23 (a chisel).

The wave of protest that arose was a reflection of the horror felt at any damage inflicted on any archaeological site in Egypt.

(Zatara)

What are you afraid of mr hawass...if you are a serious scientist with the progress of egyptology at heart you should welcome such initiatives.

Hawass left office in 2011.

These days, he is associated with the Zahi Hawass Center for Egyptology, and co-operates with the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities. Khaled El-Anany has been the Minister of Tourism and Antiquities since 2016.

(Zatara)

... But then again...somebody took a sample...why is hawass not taking a sample and proof his theory for once and for all.

As just explained, Hawass is no longer the Minister.

In any case, the samples obtained by the Germans weren't large enough.

Besides any other consideration, any samples from these dipinti would need to contain material that could be subected to scientific investigation: a matter in some doubt.

And why, anyway, would any minister or archaeologist risk damaging an archaeological artefact to prove a point - the dating of the GP - which is simply not in question?

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: zatara

Indeed, It is true that on Captain Vyse first entering the relief chambers above the kings chamber there was no mention of this Cartouche or any other markings... they were discovered the next day... Which gave Vyse and his accomplices ample time to forge them...

Not really: there would not have been time.

Campbell's Chamber was first opened up late on the Saturday. Vyse and his team then left to spend Saturday evening and Sunday in Cairo. He didn't return until the Sunday evening.

(PerfectAnomoly)

... And the only real evidence we have that this building was built by Khufu... (Except for one small figuirine found in the general location of the pyramid..)

Apart from (as mentioned) the instances of Khufu's cartouche name in the boat pits; on the pyramid backing-stones; on other constructions on the Giza Plateau; and in Inspector Merer's log-book.

The figurine you mention is believed to have been made long after Khufu's era.

(PerfectAnomoly)

There is also the fact that the kings name is spelt incorrectly and that only recenlty have we discovered our translation error, subsequent to Vyse entering the chamber...

The King's cartouche name is not spelt incorrectly. That was a misunderstanding on the part of Zechariah Sitchin; long since discredited.

a reply to: Hooke

The King's cartouche name is not spelt incorrectly.

It absolutely is spelt incorrectly twice in Vyse's private journal. But you know that.

Still awaiting your response (and here) as to why Vyse spelt that cartouche incorrectly twice.

SC

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Hi PA,

You might find the video below which concerns the Vyse fraud of some interest:



Regards,

SC

a reply to: Hooke

Yes, I know about Zahi and his new job..

And with all respect, it is all very nice and dandy. I am afraid that we will go into semantics which will not contribute to the content of this thread. If you dont mind I will leave all what I wrote as it is. I will be okay with it if I wrote tomato and you think patato.

Khufu isn't correctly translated or understood. Khufu means Govern. Hence “Protect me”. It doesn't refer to a actual person

Egyptian history, like other modern interpretations of Mythos, is vastly misunderstood

The main problem is something I refer to as The Nominum Touch. Where people have misunderstood the personification of character traits, to be God's that were worshiped, or living historical figures. When this is/was not the case

The correct translation of the Bible, for instance, has very few (if any) “names” or “named people” in it. What we today interpret as peoples names within the book, are supposed to be interpreted as the meaning of the word, used as a name

For example; the name Philip means Purpose. Hence why the name is said to mean “Lover of horses”. It is figurative of something you love, which drives you. Your passion. Your “purpose”

Likewise, Thor was not the God of thunder. He was a personification of the resonance (resounding/thunder) of though. Thor literally means Thought

The same as Thoth literally means Thought. It wasn't a God worshiped. It was a principle or ideal to be aspired to. Except he wasn't personified as a person carrying a hammer as the source of thunder in the sky, like Thor. He was drawn as a man with a birds head

Notice how they link the person with the sky in both?

But they did not “Worship” Thoth. They aspired to be like Thoth. There is a massive difference

If someone was thoughtful and wise, they were like Thoth. Or if someone wanted to be a scholar and intellectual, they aspired to be like Thoth

The (aged) bird gives flight and soars, hence why it was used as the head

Tut Ankh Amun is said to mean The Living Image Of Amun. Do you know what it really means? Translator

The hieroglyph with a measure of 6, with a frequency of 6. Is harmony. To bring into alignment. 6 spaces for 6 peaks

Tut is said to mean “The”, when it means something closer to “Read”. Not only in the sense of words on paper, but in the more broad sense. To read the tide. To read emotions. To compare one against another. This is why it is commonly used in translation as “The”, because “the” is one compared to another. Perspective, compared to focus. The external, compared to the internal. “The …”

ⵙ is meant to mean Ra/Sun, when it actually means Mind

Those who wrote the hieroglyph system didn't see any distinction between the sun in the sky and the mind inside the head. They are one in the same. The sun in the sky, is literally and actually the mind inside your own head

In this sense, the hieroglyph can be used for the sun in the sky, but it was not how they wrote it to be interpreted

The dot is the mind. The circle is the head (“shelling”, to contain within). The sun in the sky. The mind in the head

The writings with ⵙ refer to the power of the mind

Again. They did not worship. They respected. They aspired to be like. But they did not worship

A temple to Thoth, would be something equivalent to a modern University

Ankh ☥ means Intelligence

You can see how it is misinterpreted to be “Key of life”, “Life” or “Eternal life”. Because they have a similar root meaning to/of “Intelligence”

Ankh is the exact same as the Sumerian word Anunnaki which is said to mean, That which from the heavens came/fell to Earth (Heavens grace)

It is also the exact same as the word Angel which said to mean messenger or carrier, depicted as a man able to fly, when it means Intelligence

Notice again how “The sky” and “Man” is used, the same as with “Thoth” and “Thor”?

Intelligence/Ankh is something held by personified characters. They possess intelligence

The Sumerians held the pine cone/pineal. This was the same as the Ankh

Christians instead give/gave the person wings. So they can literally fly

But this Angel, “Intelligence” is almost the exact same concept as Thoth with his bird head. Or Thor as a man holding the hammer that brings thunder to the sky

Mind/Intelligence

(Note: A important distinction here is that ancient cultures before Christianity, used personification with wings to represent someone who was able to make you feel good. Not for divinity, or to reference the mind and/or intelligence. For instance, a pub owner who sold you beer. Or someone who could give you drugs. Eventually, this more commonly became used as a way to describe a woman who would have sex with you. Faerie, was a word originally used to describe a prostitute, which is why they were depicted with wings and sparkly sunshine for how good they'd make you feel. Faerie also shares a common root with the word F$#cking. Both of which have the same meaning. The Burney relief is most likely a mural that was used for a brothel. The “hat” she is wearing, is literally a vagina. See how her head sits inside it?)

My point is, that there is very little point to arguing over what is written where and by who, because very little of it is correctly translated, let alone understood

It's best to stick to the archaeological facts which can be grasped and/or discovered. Like getting into the true “insides” of the pyramid, on the other side of the service tunnels we know today, to see what is written in there

Keep up the good work Scott

---

One last part I find personally interesting

Khonsu means Conscious (Consciousness). Hence "Traveler”, "Embracer”, "Pathfinder," and "Defender" and why Khonsu was said to be instrumental in the creation of new life in all living creatures. The oldest known Jewish name on Earth Cohen is derived from the same source as the name Khonsu

My family name is a older variant of the name Khonsu, older than the Jewish variant Cohen and is one of the oldest family names on Earth

My custom ATS Avatar title I am the ⵙ is a very literally translation of what my real life name means. I am the conscious mind

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

(Hooke) The King's cartouche name is not spelt incorrectly.

(SC) It absolutely is spelt incorrectly twice in Vyse's private journal. But you know that.

(Hooke) Which has nothing to do with what I wrote in reply to PerfectAnomoly. But you know that.

PerfectAnomoly was echoing Sitchin's misspelling allegation, which I had assumed you reject. Or was I mistaken ... ?

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
Still awaiting your response (and here) as to why Vyse spelt that cartouche incorrectly twice.

Perhaps you could point out where in either of those old posts you talked about Vyse spelling anything. I am surprised that you reference them at all. In the first you quoted my words to this effect: "As you have declared your intent to persist in this vein, this discussion is over as far as I am concerned." Which part of this did you not understand? The tenor of your posts gave clear indications that you were not really seeking a response, so why you should still be "awaiting" one (on a point, moreover, you did not raise at the time) escapes me.

However, if you still consider the various points you did raise to be cogent and worthy of attention, then we may fairly expect to find them discussed in the appendices of "Void." Are they?

a reply to: Scott Creighton

You ignore the builder's papyrus for one. Next, you should know it would be impossible to forge the builder marks that is why Graham Hancock changed his mind after he was allowed to visit.

"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began."

a reply to: Hooke

(Hooke) Which has nothing to do with what I wrote in reply to PerfectAnomoly. But you know that.
PerfectAnomoly was echoing Sitchin's misspelling allegation, which I had assumed you reject. Or was I mistaken ... ?

Sitchin wasn't writing about Sitchin's misspelling. Sitchin was writing about Vyse's misspelling of the king's cartouche. As it turns out Sitchin was wrong with the particular example he presented which arose due to the poorly printed copy of Vyse's book that he had. (He should have done better research). But Vyse DID misspell the Khufu cartouche twice in his private journal. So Sitchin was absolutely right, imo, to suspect the marks were fake, even if the evidence he himself used to demonstrate it was flawed.

Perhaps you could point out where in either of those old posts you talked about Vyse spelling anything. I am surprised that you reference them at all. In the first you quoted my words to this effect: "As you have declared your intent to persist in this vein, this discussion is over as far as I am concerned." Which part of this did you not understand? The tenor of your posts gave clear indications that you were not really seeking a response, so why you should still be "awaiting" one (on a point, moreover, you did not raise at the time) escapes me.

However, if you still consider the various points you did raise to be cogent and worthy of attention, then we may fairly expect to find them discussed in the appendices of "Void." Are they?

This is complete deflection; flim-flam to avoid answering my questions in that post. You have no reasonable answer - fine.

SC

I just noticed the book title. Reminds me of the Rendlesham Enigma who Osborn co-authored with Penniston and now seemingly contributed to this other Enigma book. I wonder if there will be a hint of the Penniston binary codes in this book or has Osborn completely left it out?No clue at this point. I just noticed both book titles.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scott Creighton

You ignore the builder's papyrus for one.

Do I? Have you read my new book?

Next, you should know it would be impossible to forge the builder marks that is why Graham Hancock changed his mind after he was allowed to visit.

"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began."

See also: The Great Pyramid Hoax, pp.96-98.

SC

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
I just noticed the book title. Reminds me of the Rendlesham Enigma who Osborn co-authored with Penniston and now seemingly contributed to this other Enigma book. I wonder if there will be a hint of the Penniston binary codes in this book or has Osborn completely left it out?No clue at this point. I just noticed both book titles.

Other than reading over part of the MS and making what I consider an important insight which I've included in the new book, Gary Osborn has had no input whatsoever to this book. There is nothing in this book about Rendlesham or aliens or binary codes.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton


Ok Scott. Thankyou.