Originally posted by Dragoon01
reply to post by Harte
I am not saying I dont believe Hancock when he says they were painted and behind the joints. I am saying that just because they extend behind a joint
does not mean they were not painted after construction. Look at Vyse's drawings they indicate which marks are behind the joints. Only one that shows
a cartouche horizontally could not have been the result of paint running down into the joint as it was applied. The vertical cartouche could have been
painted on and the wet paint simply ran down into the crack of the joint.
Hancock and Hawass, and anyone else that's looked, report seeing glyphs between the stones, not paint runs.
Originally posted by Dragoon01My earlier question about this still stands. If you can see down into a crack to know that the Heiroglyph
is behind a joint then how could that preclude someone from painting it after the joint was in place? If it can be seen then someone could use a tool
that could reach that area to paint it in? Did this only become visable after Vyse's time? Did Hawass dig out the joint so that it became more
visable? I have not seen this talked about in any detail.
Some cracks are two inches wide. The chambers, never meant to be occupied at all, are unfinished and not particualarly well-fitted. In fact, they're
not really "chambers" and at least one is so low you basically have to crawl in it. If you shine a flashlight into a large crack and see glyphs
running back 3 or 4 feet deep, how would you propose that was done? Inside a chamber that was architecturally sealed by megalithic blocks that had to
be blown open with gunpowder?
Regarding visibility, Vyse couldn't have seen them. All he had was lamps. You need a good flashlight.
IIRC, it was Hawass who discovered them, though knowing Hawass, it easily could have been someone working under him!
Are you postulating that Vyse went in there with some kind of weird home-made extender paintbrush and proceded to write these glyphs in heiratic
script, when in his time it was thought that such script didn't arise until hundreds of years after Khufu was dead?
Do you think Hawass forged them/ Do you actually believe that Hawass would do something like that? Why on Earth would anyone do it in modern times,
given that the date of construction (approximate) is a settled issue already in Egyptology, and the only place this argument even takes place is on
conspiracy website forums?
Originally posted by Dragoon01
Lets assume Hancock and Hawass are correct and the cartouche are behind the joints. Again the cartouche that has the name of "Khufu" is not one of
those. Its further up on the wall. The cartouche with the other name for Khufu is the horizontal one behind the joint. Again that leads us to question
did Vyse forge the cartouche higher up on the wall? Is this "other name for Khufu" actually his name and not a form of a gods name instead?
The Khufu glyph, as spelled in the chamber, was unknown in Vyse's time. Even Sitchin makes this point, though he admittedly didn't mean to. That
is, he lied about Vyse's claim and tried to back it up with statements from the era showing that the glyph that Sitchin says Vyse should have used
was unknown. He assumed you and I and the rest of the world would never find out that the "unknown" spelling was the spelling that Vyse actually
reported on.
That seems circuitous in phrasing, but it says it. Vyse supposedly copied Khufu's cartouche from a book on Hieroglyphics that didn't contain the
glyph that exists to this day in the chamber. A glyph that the British Museum's expert at the time says he didn't know.
Harte
