The Pyramid Code, page 3

reply to post by Devino

---

The so-caleld original expedition entered a pyramid that had been entered centuries before. Empty? Of course! What is interesting of course is unadorned walls of the pyramids. Other chambers were highly decorated such as the tombs in the Valley of the Kings or the tombs at Saqqara that I have seen as well.

The claims about Vyse are appear to me to be overblown by people with wacko ideas about the pyramids. That's part of the deal isn't it? If you have a ridiculous claim often with zero merit you have to get the real data out of the way to get the stupid ideas displayed.

If we wanted to be really, really stupid we could point out that there is no mention of the pyramids at Giza in Exodus. So if we took the bible to be true we could claim that the pyramids had to be newer than Exodus since they did not exist at the time of Exodus.

More information on the builders of the pyramids at Giza.

Wo built the pyramids? - NOVA

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence we have is graffiti on ancient stone monuments in places that they didn't mean to be shown. Like on foundations when we dig down below the floor level, up in the relieving chambers above the King's chamber, and in many monuments of the Old Kingdom, temples, the Sun temples, other pyramids. Well, the graffiti gives us a picture of organization where crews, where a gang of workmen was organized into two crews.

So for example, we have a name, compounded with the name of Menkaure, and it seems to translate 'the drunks or the drunkards of Menkaure.' There's one that's well attested, actually in the relieving chambers above the Great Pyramid, the Friends of Khufu gang, the Drunks of Menkaura gang, and then you have the green phyles and then the powerful ones. None of this sounds like slavery, does it?

And in fact it gets more intriguing. Because in certain monuments you find the name of one gang on one side of the monument and another gang, we assume competing on the other side of the monument. You find that to some extent in the temple, the Pyramid temple of Menkaure.

So it seems that the claims of the site you linked are incomplete and possibly misleading.

Lehner to the statements that it must have been an older civilization that built the pyramids.

Why is there such a need to look for yet another culture, to say 'No, it wasn't these people, it was some civilization that's lost, even older.' And to some extent I think we feel the need to look for a lost civilization on time's other horizon because we feel lost in our civilization and somehow we don't want to face the little man behind the curtain as you had in "The Wizard of Oz." We want the great and powerful wizard with all the sound and fury.

Later on in the interview Hawass states

We are lucky because we found this whole evidence of the workmen who built the pyramids and we found the artisans and Mark found the bakery and we found this settlement of the camp, and all the evidence, the hieroglyphical inscriptions of the overseer of the site of the Pyramid, the overseer of the west side of the Pyramid, the craftsman we found, the man who makes the statue of the overseer of the craftsman, the inspector of building tombs, director of building tombs—I'm telling you all the titles. We found 25 unique new titles connected with these people. Then who built the pyramids? It was the Egyptians who built the pyramids. The Great Pyramid is dated with all the evidence, I'm telling you now to 4,600 years, the reign of Khufu. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is one of 104 pyramids in Egypt with superstructure. And there are 54 pyramids with substructure. There is support (that) the builders of the pyramids were Egyptians. They are not the Jews as has been said, they are not people from a lost civilization. They are not out of space. They are Egyptian and their skeletons are here, and were examined by scholars, doctors and the race of all the people we found are completely supporting that they are Egyptians.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Devino

---

If we wanted to be really, really stupid we could point out that there is no mention of the pyramids at Giza in Exodus. So if we took the bible to be true we could claim that the pyramids had to be newer than Exodus since they did not exist at the time of Exodus.

Actually a lot of the pyramids had been buried prior to their discoveries (with the amount of sand over the top of these at the time, they had been buried for quite a few thousand years if not more). So not being in Exodus means nothing, you cant talk about what you cant see, especially if its buried....

Sorry will respond to everyone else when I get a bit more time...

reply to post by The_Seeker

---

There is no chance that the pyramids were covered by sand at the time of Exodus. That's a pipe dream. The simple fact is that the pyramids are not mentioned in Exodus.

reply to post by stereologist

---

Originally posted by stereologist
The so-caleld original expedition entered a pyramid that had been entered centuries before.

I am referring to recorded history and not idle speculation when I mention Al Mamoun's expedition, the original expedition into the great pyramid.

As far as we know, the first people to enter the great pyramid since the time of its construction were the Arabs in 820 AD. Under caliph, Al Mamoun, the Arabs broke into the great pyramid (since they could not find the hidden entrance) by boring into the limestone with crude instruments. After months they did manage to break in and find the descending passage.

ADD:

The only object that Al Mamun's men found in the Great Pyramid was the coffin in the King's Chamber. They searched frantically to find treasure but found nothing. Legend has it that to pacify "his" disappointed men Al Mamum had a treasure of gold hidden in the pyramid at night, amounting to just the wages due to his men, and explained the coincidence on the wisdom of Allah.

Source.

We know about this expedition because Al Mamoun recorded everything and we have these records today. I don't think it's wise to dismiss these records and assume Al Mamoun was lying and continue to speculate or rather fabricate our own interpretation of these historical events.

Empty? Of course! What is interesting of course is unadorned walls of the pyramids. Other chambers were highly decorated such as the tombs in the Valley of the Kings or the tombs at Saqqara that I have seen as well.

Why empty of course? I would think there should have been something left to indicate that these monuments were tombs. I would like to make it clear when you say, "other chambers" you are not referring to any chamber inside the great pyramids. There are no inscriptions of any kind in or on these pyramids except for the graffiti that Vyse found.

The claims about Vyse are appear to me to be overblown by people with wacko ideas about the pyramids.

The claims about Vyse being a fraud were made by Archaeologists and not by me or any other "wacko". I don't have a link to a web site as I gained this information from the books I have read on the subject.

If you have a ridiculous claim often with zero merit you have to get the real data out of the way to get the stupid ideas displayed.

I couldn't agree with you more as this is my point exactly. The ridiculous claim is that they were tombs and this rests on zero merit so those following this belief must get rid of all the real data proving otherwise.

If we wanted to be really, really stupid we could point out that there is no mention of the pyramids at Giza in Exodus.

Let's don't be stupid, "really, really", or otherwise. I am claiming the evidence is weak because I believe it is weak. Vyse could be a great and honorable man but there are claims that he was a fraud. These monuments are different than all of the other structures found in Egypt for several reasons mainly of which they are completely absent of any identifying markings. I have read both of the sites you linked and countless others and they all say the same thing.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence we have is graffiti...

It seems to me that the whole tomb theory rests on this "most compelling" piece of evidence. Let's just say that this graffiti is legitimate and those building this pyramid left writings hailing Khufu (mispronouncing his name btw) and that Menkaurians like to get drunk and all, what does this mean. Is this proof that this was a tomb for Khufu? Even with this it is still a weak argument to make.

We do not know what these monuments were built for and this puts into question the dogma propagated by Egyptologists that they were tombs. Are they saying this because it sounds neat, do they really believe this or is there some hidden evidence that they have not yet shown us? I prefer to remain skeptical as I see fallacy in the accepted theory.

[edit on 6/22/2010 by Devino]

reply to post by Devino

---

When you don't name the group it leads to confusion as I was thinking you meant something other than what you intended. So many of your comments are based on my lack of understanding of what you meant.

Actually, you'll find that the comments on Vyse were made by wackos=, or blown out of proportion by wackos. And then you quote me out of context. Lovely.

And I read those sites and they give lots of evidence. And one of the pieces is graffiti. That is only one of the pieces and it is not just in the relieving chambers, but allover the place. And it is more than what Vyse found. And you know that because you said you read the linked pages.

reply to post by stereologist

---

When you don't name the group it leads to confusion as I was thinking you meant something other than what you intended. So many of your comments are based on my lack of understanding of what you meant.

OK, we are misunderstanding each other because you lost me here. What "groups" are you referring to?

Actually, you'll find that the comments on Vyse were made by wackos=, or blown out of proportion by wackos.

I guess I haven't read any of these, sorry.

And then you quote me out of context. Lovely.

How did I quote you out of context? If I am misunderstanding you then please correct me.

Your link to the Nova site is describing the "workers graffiti" found by Vyse in the great pyramid and graffiti found in other monuments. They don't clearly distinguish the difference between the great pyramid, as per our discussion, and "other monuments". Never-the-less I am not claiming that workers did not build the great pyramid, I am claiming that we do not know for what purpose they were built.

To be clear I am just being skeptical to the evidence and theories presented and I am not trying to insult you nor quote you out of context.

reply to post by The_Seeker

---

Thanks. From all the comments, this sounds great. I enjoy the pyramid stuff.

Bookmarked and will watch em tonight. Peace

reply to post by stereologist

---

Why is there no chance?

www.sciencebuzz.org...

Maybe all those workmen they thought built the pyramids were actually excavators or the like! (Just a thought nothing else)

[edit on 23-6-2010 by The_Seeker]

reply to post by Devino

---

Thanks for answering all that. I was at work at the time, and was a bit flat out to answer.

reply to post by Devino

---

Yeah I just realised that. Was crossing between Doco's.
Rather funnily they had a doco on fox about the way the Nile moves, and how its had many hundreds of legs over many years right across the Nile Delta. They were trying to work out where an ancient city used to lie, even though Archeologists thought they had discovered it.
The city looked like every brick had just been picked up and moved to another spot! Everyone knew there was something not quite right but, anything
that was considered not right, was disregarded (seems a common factor amongst those in the profession) Damn I was only half watching so I cant give you the name of it.... Sorry!

reply to post by The_Seeker

---

So now you've found a pyramid buried under 65 feet of Sand in a place that is relatively flat and not surrounded by any drop offs. The GP is 138 meters high today and sits on a plateau at least 40 meters above the valley. That makes 178 meters that would have to filled in to cover the GP. The 20 meters you point out pales in comparison.

So again I say that Exodus does not mention the dunes and it is impossible for the GP to have been covered by sand.

Originally posted by stereologist
Of course the stone containers held sarcophogi that held the mummies, but you know what I mean.

What I think is interesting is that the pyramids in general are not adorned. The tombs were, but not the pyramids.

I know what you mean with the sarcophagi in the stone tub, this is what I originally had in mind. When you say “The tombs were [adorned]” you mean in the valley of the Kings, correct? Not the tombs in the pyramids.

Here is the real clincher in all of this, when Vyse found the graffiti it contained pieces of 'text' that were later figured out. Wouldn't Vyse be a genius to create a forgery which was not understood at the time, but subsequently was figured out to be correct.

This is opposite to what I have read. I didn’t want to get into a discussion over the validity of Sir Howard Vyse’s claims. It was my intention to simply bring up the fact that his claims were in question. Originally I was referring to an earlier claim of finding a mummy in one of the smaller pyramids that was later found to be a hoax. I couldn’t find any online confirmation to this so I’ll need to refer back to my books, the source, to see if I can find more on this. What I did find was some information on the graffiti we are discussing. Perhaps I am getting bad information here so maybe you could help me out.


Even though this site doesn’t appear to be linked to Von Daniken, Sitchin nor Hancock it still looks a bit shaky. There is some good information with names and dates though.

Source for quotes, Atlantis Rising

Only two months before, his [Vyse’s] rival, the Italian explorer Captain Caviglia, had stirred archaeological circles with his find of quarry inscriptions in some of the tombs around the Great Pyramid. These quarry inscriptions took the form of hieroglyphs daubed on the building blocks with a red paint, and had been used by the builders of the Old Kingdom...

The question has never been answered, why do inscriptions appear only in the air space chambers that Col. Howard- Vyse opened, but none were found in Davison’s Chamber, with which the Colonel had nothing to do, discovered earlier, in 1765?

I was under the impression that there are five relieving chambers, four of which Vyse found and these are the only ones with graffiti found in them. I have read this from other sources as well but your link claims (quoting Zahi Hawass) all five relieving chambers have graffiti.
Even so there are other problems.

Serious problems also arise when we examine the nature of the inscriptions themselves. Samuel Birch, a hieroglyph expert of the British Museum, was among the first to analyze the air chamber paintings, and noted a number of peculiarities among them which remain unresolved to this day. These "peculiarities" represent serious mistakes on the part of the forger. Birch noted, for example, that many of the daubings were not hieroglyphic but hieratic.

In fact, Birch and later Egyptologists such as Carl Richard Lepsius and Sir Flinders Petrie were disturbed at the number of exceptions of usage in the air space chamber, inscriptions found by Col. Howard-Vyse that have absolutely no parallel throughout 4,000 years of hieroglyphic writing.

Here are some names; Samuel Birch - hieroglyph expert of the British Museum, Carl Richard Lepsius and Sir Flinders Petrie –both Egyptologists.

These appear to be unique inscriptions found only by Vyse and in the chambers found only by Vyse. What about the mispronunciations?

...in Col. Howard-Vyse’s chambers one finds great confusion concerning the appearance of the name Khufu. At the time these chambers were being opened, the Pharaoh’s cartouche had not yet been fully revealed from other excavations, and there were several possibilities to choose from. As a result, a number of crude hybrid forms appear throughout the air chambers, such as "Khnem-Khuf," "Souphis," "Saufou," etc. The problem with the first example, "Khnem-Khuf," is that we know today that it signifies "brother of Khufu" and refers to Khafre, Khufu’s eventual successor. For years, this appearance of a second king’s name has not been explained, and as Gaston Maspero observed in The Dawn of Civilization: "The existence of the two cartouches of Khufu and Khnem-Khufu on the same monument has caused much embarrassment to Egyptologists."

Scott Creighton did a thread on these inscriptions and some of their discrepancies, "Who was Khufu?".

From Scott's thread;

The image below (right) is Stadelmann’s photograph of the Khufu inscription in Campbell’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid, first discovered in 1837 by R.W.H. Vyse. The image to the left shows the alleged “Khufu” inscription in the Abydos King List.

Image 1:


From the work that Scott did they look very different to me. Is this just another bad example or are there more of these discrepancies?

Adding to this further is the fact that, where the right hieroglyph name for Khufu does appear, it is spelled wrong. The hieroglyph sources available to Col. Howard-Vyse in 1837, Sir John Gardner Wilkinson’s Material Hieroglyphia, and Leon de Laborde’s Voyage de l’Arabee Petree, incorrectly depicted the first symbol of Khufu’s name as an open circle with a dot in the middle…

This is what we see in Scott's comparison above and it also contradicts the claim that Vyse got it correct before he could have known.

Who was Khufu and what part did he play in the Great Pyramid?

Actually, we have the testament of Pharaoh Khufu himself that he only did repair work on the Great Pyramid.

I have read about the inventory stele, found in 1857 by Auguste Mariette, yet I have not heard much else about it. This stele is said to be between the paws of the Sphinx and tells of a dream Khufu had about rebuilding these monuments. Is this just another part of the big hoax set to undermine the Khufu tomb theory or is it information that is being dismissed and ignored?

I think there is enough information here that we could look up, independently, and verify these claims if we wished to go this route. Even if the claims I linked from this site are incorrect I don’t see how this proves the tomb theory but if they are correct then this destroys the theory of tombs for the Pharaohs that has been accepted by mainstream archaeologists all of these decades.

More Mysterious Nazca Lines From Space
  Posted 6 days ago with 124 member flags

Egypt\'s Ancient Fleet: Lost for Thousands of Years, Discovered in Cave
  Posted 17 days ago with 95 member flags

Arizona man finds what he believes will change American prehistoric history....
  Posted 19 days ago with 56 member flags

The Aztec and Norse god of war are both missing one hand.
  Posted 17 days ago with 48 member flags

63,000-Year-Old Modern Human Skull Found in Laos
  Posted 18 days ago with 38 member flags

Multiple Human Species Were Likely The Norm
  Posted 11 days ago with 37 member flags

Plantagenet Legacy Paved Over??? Presidents, Christianity, And Hidden History.
  Posted 11 days ago with 18 member flags

The Sumerian \'Flood-Storm\' weapon.
  Posted 6 days ago with 18 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: