Great Pyramid Void Enigma - Excerpt #3 From My New Book

originally posted by: anti72
a reply to: Hooke
, do you have any infos about the pencil marks on the original cartouche?
somebody did some alignment measurements there.

...

There's an archive thread on it here.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Hooke
Why didn't the author reply to the points raised?

Well, I don't know. Since I'm not the author, you're asking the wrong person.

Maybe he didn't want to engage in a silly online bickering match,

This isn't about bickering: it's about addressing, and answering, questions concerning evidence and interpretation.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

or maybe he's already dealt with that person before and didn't feel a need to spend the energy on them again.

Indeed. Now, when you're ready.

SC

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Then a geological examination on the encrustations layers that lie on top of the ancient paint marks and cartouches.

This has already been explained to you in an earlier post, where you give the quote as:

Were these just fakes? Studying them closely, however, they looked authentically ancient to me. I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia." - Dr R. Schoch, Forbidden Science, Kenyon, D., Bear & Co., 2008, p.46.

What’s wrong with that post was explained to you in 2014, where Schoch's quote was given as follows:

. . . But was Howard Vyse being totally honest? Had maybe his workmen who blasted and chiseled their way into these chambers in fact drawn these crude “Egyptian” inscriptions on the blocks themselves? Were these just fakes? Studying them closely, however, they looked authentically ancient to me [my emphasis—Martin Stower]. I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia, and the inscriptions continue under the overlying blocks.

Yes. And? We do not know what Schoch is meaning when he says they "looked ancient". Is he merely stating the obvious - that they looked liked like ancient Egyptian hieratic painted marks? Well, if so, then a good forger would make them look like that, wouldn't they. That's the whole reason this debate even exists. But, as you should know, just because something may look authentic in no way guarantees authenticity. We might only be able to do that by applying science to determine the composition of the crystals and the paint. Schoch was not, AFAIK, permitted to do any scientific analysis so what he saw could just as easily have been faked, as much evidence points towards.

And it's laughable also that you now resort to citing Dr Schoch in this instance when you are quick to call his scientific skill into question when it comes to matters of the dating of the Sphinx. Hypocrisy?

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Hooke
Why didn't the author reply to the points raised?

Well, I don't know. Since I'm not the author, you're asking the wrong person.

Maybe he didn't want to engage in a silly online bickering match,

This isn't about bickering: it's about addressing, and answering, questions concerning evidence and interpretation.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

or maybe he's already dealt with that person before and didn't feel a need to spend the energy on them again.

Indeed. Now, when you're ready.

SC

Gave you a star I don't always agree with you but your willing to discuss your beliefs. And I must admit I'm impressed most people just try to hide.

As far as the Vyse thing I doubt he forged them however I wouldn't rule out one of his workers. Vyse probably told them he's running out of funds to keep being paid I could see the look boss what we found.

But it really hardly matters anymore the only time it was an argument was when people tried to argue Koufu didnt build the pyramid. And the last decade of finds with even workers tombs shows that he did.

originally posted by: Hooke
Maybe he has no answers. I looked for this in your list, but could not find it.

It was implied in this part, along with every other hypothetical available...I didn't think that would need to be spelled out:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Should I go on with the conjecture, or do you agree that it's a pointless exercise for both of us?

I didn't know that I needed to list all of the possibilities in order to please you. My apologies?

Best regards.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Hooke
Why didn't the author reply to the points raised?

Well, I don't know. Since I'm not the author, you're asking the wrong person.

Maybe he didn't want to engage in a silly online bickering match,

This isn't about bickering: it's about addressing, and answering, questions concerning evidence and interpretation.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

or maybe he's already dealt with that person before and didn't feel a need to spend the energy on them again.

Indeed. Now, when you're ready.

I was already. Are you? Remember before answering that I have experience of your posting style over many years.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Yes. And? We do not know what Schoch is meaning when he says they "looked ancient". . . .

Hooke: Do you not? Haven't you asked him? Given your use of this quote in print, as well as on message boards, we might fairly suppose that you have. So have you ... ?

Allow me to remind you that what Schoch wrote was this:

Studying them closely, however, they looked authentically ancient to me.

And he went on to explain what he “meant” by this:

I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia, and the inscriptions continue under the overlying blocks.

So it's all there in the quote. Having a working grasp of the English language, I could see what he meant.

SC: And it's laughable also that you now resort to citing Dr Schoch . . .

Hooke: But it's not me that's citing Schoch: it's you. You cite him: but disregard what he says. Not only do you disregard it, but you twist it. My comments concern your misuse of his statements. No decision on the merits of those statements is required or entailed. Your posing now as his champion is the hypocrisy in the case.

originally posted by: dragonridr

...

As far as the Vyse thing I doubt he forged them however I wouldn't rule out one of his workers. Vyse probably told them he's running out of funds to keep being paid I could see the look boss what we found.

...

What leads you to think Vyse was short of money ... ?

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Yes. And? We do not know what Schoch is meaning when he says they "looked ancient". . . .

Hooke: Do you not? Haven't you asked him? Given your use of this quote in print, as well as on message boards, we might fairly suppose that you have. So have you ... ?

Allow me to remind you that what Schoch wrote was this:

Studying them closely, however, they looked authentically ancient to me.

And he went on to explain what he “meant” by this:

I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia, and the inscriptions continue under the overlying blocks.

SC: Ask Schoch what exactly? To clarify exactly what he meant in this small passage and remove all ambiguity? I'm not the one that tries to use this brief passage by Schoch to try and prove the painted marks in those Vyse Chambers are authentic - that is you and your co-author that try to do this. I merely point out to you (and others) that in your zeal to find anything that supports your untenable position with regards to the authenticity of these marks, you will grasp at anything at all that you think is supportive of your position without first applying even a modicum of critical thinking to it. That is what I see here because, quite simply, you cannot equate "...looked authentically ancient..." with are "...authentically ancient..."
.

This is especially so given that Dr Schoch further qualifies his statement by saying "... I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia..." (my emphasis). These chambers have been open now for almost a couple of centuries whereby the atmospheric interior would have changed dramatically and, as such, possibly precipitating the crystallisation that Schoch observed.

Appearances can be deceptive. We will not know for certain if those marks are authentic until such time as a scientific method is found to determine their authenticity. That they may have the appearance of authenticity may just be exactly that. That is the long and short of it no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

Hooke: So it's all there in the quote. Having a working grasp of the English language, I could see what he meant.

SC: All you're doing is twisting Schoch's words to get them to say something he never actually said. You are completely over-reaching here. You claim to know "...what he meant..." only because your interpretation of what he said suits your agenda. But anyone will tell you that something that merely looks authentic may not actually be authentic. Nowhere does Schoch say these painted marks "...are authentic." Nowhere. How difficult is this for you to grasp?

SC: And it's laughable also that you now resort to citing Dr Schoch . . .

Hooke: But it's not me that's citing Schoch: it's you. You cite him: but disregard what he says. Not only do you disregard it, but you twist it. My comments concern your misuse of his statements. No decision on the merits of those statements is required or entailed.

SC: I am not the one that uses this quote of Schoch's to bolster my position. You are. And those who support your view are. Indeed, in this very thread someone tried to use Schoch's statement as proof of the authenticity of these marks. And YOU are the one misusing Schoch's statement. You are reading way much more into it than he ever actually said.

Hooke: Your posing now as his champion is the hypocrisy in the case.

The hypocrisy is still all yours, I'm afraid. I don't disagree with what Dr Schoch says with regards to these painted marks and neither do I disagree with his analysis of the weathering of the Sphinx. I accept both sets of comments by him (in the first instance my interpretation of his remarks which clearly differs from your own). It is YOU that is cherry-picking Dr Schoch's geological expertise. When Schoch's analysis doesn't suit your argument (vis-a-vis the weathering and age of the Sphinx), he is talking nonsense according to you. But where you think (in your opinion) his geological expertise supports your view, you're all over it like a rash and welcome it. You cannot have it both ways.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

And it's laughable also that you now resort to citing Dr Schoch in this instance when you are quick to call his scientific skill into question when it comes to matters of the dating of the Sphinx. Hypocrisy?

Where have I been “quick” to do any such thing? Perhaps the “you” addressed here is not me specifically, but some assumed collective—in which case allow me to remind you that Martin cited Schoch’s relevant statements as long ago as 2005.

He challenged you on your misuse of them in 2014.

And he posted this summary just days ago.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

And it's laughable also that you now resort to citing Dr Schoch in this instance when you are quick to call his scientific skill into question when it comes to matters of the dating of the Sphinx. Hypocrisy?

Where have I been “quick” to do any such thing? Perhaps the “you” addressed here is not me specifically, but some assumed collective—in which case allow me to remind you that Martin cited Schoch’s relevant statements as long ago as 2005.

He challenged you on your misuse of them in 2014.

And he posted this summary just days ago.

Hooke: Hooke: But it's not me that's citing Schoch: it's you.

Hooke: allow me to remind you that Martin cited Schoch’s relevant statements as long ago as 2005.

Yes, as I said, you and he have a long tradition of quoting this statement by Dr Schoch because you bizarrely think it helps bolster your argument with regards to these painted marks. It is not I who relies on and who posts Schoch's brief statement on these marks. It is YOU and your co-author who do so. I merely respond to point out how nonsensical your argument is in citing it. I repeat. Schoch's statement merely states that, as far as he was concerned, they (the painted marks) "...looked authentically ancient..." (my emphasis).

Now go away and apply some critical thinking and properly consider what that statement fully implies.

Hooke: And he posted this summary just days ago.

Sure. Posting on a site where I have no right to respond. Yes, very brave of him and you. Tell you what, Hooke, (aka Hermione), as a Director of the Hall of Ma'at web site, I challenge you to reinstate my user account there and I will gladly take both of you to task on this Vyse forgery debate right on your own turf. What are you afraid of?

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

Yes, as I said, you and he have a long tradition of quoting this statement by Dr Schoch ...

Really?

May 2005.

June 2005.

March 2014

Where is this “long tradition”? We see that you have made it up.

Martin Stower quoted Schoch’s remarks twice, on different boards, in 2005. He quoted them and let them speak for themselves. Then he left them alone, until you twisted them in 2014.

Your preparation for doing so started earlier.

The “long tradition” of trying to get around what Schoch wrote is yours.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

Yes, as I said, you and he have a long tradition of quoting this statement by Dr Schoch ...

Really?

May 2005.

June 2005.

March 2014

Where is this “long tradition”? We see that you have made it up.

Martin Stower quoted Schoch’s remarks twice, on different boards, in 2005. He quoted them and let them speak for themselves. Then he left them alone, until you twisted them in 2014.

Your preparation for doing so started earlier.

The “long tradition” of trying to get around what Schoch wrote is yours.

So here's what you said previously:

Hooke: But it's not me that's citing Schoch: it's you. You cite him: but disregard what he says. Not only do you disregard it, but you twist it.

So, according to YOU (above), it's ME that cites Schoch's comment.

And then you present us with THREE citations from your co-author of Schoch's comment. Precisely NONE where I have initiated the Schoch comment. As I said to you--I merely respond to the nonsense argument and the lack of critical thinking that you and your co-author (and others) employ with regards to Schoch's remark.

So thanks for proving my point.

As for "...what he [Schoch] says..." You merely have YOUR interpretation of what Schoch meant. And I have mine. But I tell you what, when most folks are about to spend £100,000 on, say, a piece of artwork because someone said it looks authentic, I think most sensible people would demand a bit more evidence before parting with their hard earned. Just not you or your co-author though, eh?

Oh and still the hypocrisy.

You're fooling no one with this errant nonsense--well, perhaps those who are happy to be fooled.

Now you're merely going around in circles with this nonsense - I suspect merely to waste my time.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
So, according to YOU (above), it's ME that cites Schoch's comment.

According to this, Scott, you wrote:

... a process that takes centuries or millennia” If the crystallization observed on these marks can, in Schoch's words, take just “centuries” to form ...

Scott Creighton:

And then you present us with THREE citations from your co-author of Schoch's comment.

To make it as many as three, you include the one from 2014, which is not a citation on the “forgery” question, but Martin Stower’s comment on your distortion of what Schoch wrote.

Two citations in 2005 is scarcely a “long tradition”: not in the ordinary understanding of these words.

Scott Creighton:

Precisely NONE where I have initiated the Schoch comment ...

Excuse me? Martin Stower’s post of 2014 is a response to this. You very much did initiate the distortion on which he commented.

Scott Creighton:

Oh and still the hypocrisy.

As we see. Also great tedium.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
So, according to YOU (above), it's ME that cites Schoch's comment.

According to this, Scott, you wrote:

... a process that takes centuries or millennia” If the crystallization observed on these marks can, in Schoch's words, take just “centuries” to form ...

Scott Creighton:

And then you present us with THREE citations from your co-author of Schoch's comment.

To make it as many as three, you include the one from 2014, which is not a citation on the “forgery” question, but Martin Stower’s comment on your distortion of what Schoch wrote.

Two citations in 2005 is scarcely a “long tradition”: not in the ordinary understanding of these words.

Scott Creighton:

Precisely NONE where I have initiated the Schoch comment ...

Excuse me? Martin Stower’s post of 2014 is a response to this. You very much did initiate the distortion on which he commented.

Go back and check again. I did not initiate the Schoch comment in that thread. It was initiated by 'BM' (Blackmarketeer), not I.

Scott Creighton:

Oh and still the hypocrisy.

As we see. Also great tedium.

Yes I agree. You are tedious. You can't even agree that people can have their own interpretation of things. We all have to accept YOUR interpretation of things to suit YOUR agenda. Risible. One more time - I do not accept your interpretation of Schoch's comment. Are we clear?

Now stop wasting my time with this abject nonsense.

SC

a reply to: Hooke

I must say this isn't a convincing argument. And seems like you two have gone to arguing semantics at this point. Salt crystallization can happen very quickly when dealing with limestone. Salt is the enemy of limestone it got so bad in the great pyramid do to all the tourists they had to shut down tours and clean the walls in 98. And guess what they are looking to do it again next year so it doesnt take centuries just depends on the amount of moisture they are exposed to.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Hooke

I must say this isn't a convincing argument. And seems like you two have gone to arguing semantics at this point. Salt crystallization can happen very quickly when dealing with limestone. Salt is the enemy of limestone it got so bad in the great pyramid do to all the tourists they had to shut down tours and clean the walls in 98. And guess what they are looking to do it again next year so it doesnt take centuries just depends on the amount of moisture they are exposed to.

You are exactly right. The upper image (figure below) I believe was taken by the late Rainer Stadelmann a couple of decades or so ago. The image beneath is more recently. There is a clear build up of crystals in the area of the darkened graffiti (indicated by red arrow) which shows this crystallisation can occur very rapidly.



And you are right also to point out the amount of moisture the wall surfaces have been exposed to over the years. Since these chambers were blasted open in 1837, their interiors have had a change in atmosphere for nearly 200 years. Lots of atmospheric moisture now in those small spaces, much from human sweat.

"Were these just fakes? Studying them closely, however, they looked authentically ancient to me. I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia, and the inscriptions continue under the overlying blocks. But, there are more cartouches than the one of Khufu in the chambers. Working my way down, sweating profusely and covered with grime..." (my emphasis) - Dr Robert Schoch, from here

SC

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Hooke

I must say this isn't a convincing argument. And seems like you two have gone to arguing semantics at this point. Salt crystallization can happen very quickly when dealing with limestone. Salt is the enemy of limestone it got so bad in the great pyramid do to all the tourists they had to shut down tours and clean the walls in 98. And guess what they are looking to do it again next year so it doesnt take centuries just depends on the amount of moisture they are exposed to.

Schoch wrote “mineral crystals”: he has not (as far as I know) said anything about their being salt crystals.

My concern is whether or not Scott has represented Schoch correctly.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Hooke

I must say this isn't a convincing argument. And seems like you two have gone to arguing semantics at this point. Salt crystallization can happen very quickly when dealing with limestone. Salt is the enemy of limestone it got so bad in the great pyramid do to all the tourists they had to shut down tours and clean the walls in 98. And guess what they are looking to do it again next year so it doesnt take centuries just depends on the amount of moisture they are exposed to.

Schoch wrote “mineral crystals”: he has not (as far as I know) said anything about their being salt crystals.

My concern is whether or not Scott has represented Schoch correctly.

salt is a mineral hmmmm surprised you dont know this

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Hooke

I must say this isn't a convincing argument. And seems like you two have gone to arguing semantics at this point. Salt crystallization can happen very quickly when dealing with limestone. Salt is the enemy of limestone it got so bad in the great pyramid do to all the tourists they had to shut down tours and clean the walls in 98. And guess what they are looking to do it again next year so it doesnt take centuries just depends on the amount of moisture they are exposed to.

Hooke: My concern is whether or not Scott has represented Schoch correctly.

And that is precisely my concern of YOU.

SC