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.
Originally posted by Dragoon01
reply to post by Harte
Birch was referring to the marking after the cartouche. He had not seen that style of markings prior. He was well familiar with the markings within the cartouche.
Originally posted by Dragoon01
Harte,
An artifact pulled up automatically becomes related to "Khufu" because everything prior to it was related to "Khufu" going back to Vyse. While there is a logic to this method its not really a good way of doing things.
Originally posted by Dragoon01
Harte,
I do not dsagree with you that Sitchin showed that incorrectly and you are right that discredits him. I dont really hinge any belief on his writings per say. He has muddied the waters because he leveled accusations at Vyse and then fudged his "evidence". That being said however it does not clear Vyse of these accusations. It is entirely possible that he faked or at least altered the existing marks.
Originally posted by Dragoon01
That looks funny Hans!
Yes there were ancient writers who associated the pyramid with Khufu. Vyse had this in mind when he set out to search. So his findings "confirmed" and set that context. Again the problem is that this "fact" is not necessarily a "fact".
"In Fingerprints I supported the Vyse forgery theory. Later when I got into the relieving chambers myself and saw that some quarry marks disappear far back into the gaps between the blocks I felt that I must be wrong to support the forgery theory -- because no one could have got a brush into those gaps to carry out the forgery. Therefore the quarry marks must be genuine and must have been put on the blocks before they were put into place in the chamber. Accordingly I retracted the position I had taken in Fingerprints.
It's possible I threw the baby out with the bathwater with that retraction. Unlike the unforgeable quarry marks positioned between the blocks, the Khufu cartouche is in plain view and could easily have been forged by Vyse.
I do not insist it was, I just accept that it could have been, and that some interesting doubts have been raised over its authenticity. I await further evidence one way or the other." - Graham Hancock, 4th April, 2011 (Source)
Originally posted by Hanslune
Hey Harte, yeah there is the quote I was looking for earlier in the other thread about a 'qualification' of what he stated.
Back peddle
In Fingerprints I supported the Vyse forgery theory. Later when I got into the relieving chambers myself and saw that some quarry marks disappear far back into the gaps between the blocks I felt that I must be wrong to support the forgery theory -- because no one could have got a brush into those gaps to carry out the forgery. Therefore the quarry marks must be genuine and must have been put on the blocks before they were put into place in the chamber. Accordingly I retracted the position I had taken in Fingerprints.
It's possible I threw the baby out with the bathwater with that retraction. Unlike the unforgeable quarry marks positioned between the blocks, the Khufu cartouche is in plain view and could easily have been forged by Vyse.
I do not insist it was, I just accept that it could have been, and that some interesting doubts have been raised over its authenticity. I await further evidence one way or the other.
Best wishes
Graham
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by Dragoon01
That there are glyphs on the stones is not a problem for a forgery hypothosis. The only glyhps that are important are the cartouches.
If Hawass indeed was the man who found these marks way back into a crack then yes I would be suspect of those marks because I do not trust the honesty of Hawass. I would not put anything past him to justify his position.
John Taylor in his work, 'The great pyramid; why was it built: & who built it? (1859). Taylor was also the first to claim the pyramid was divinely inspired, contained a revelation and was built not by the Egyptians, but instead the Hebrews pointing to Biblical passages
Is. 19: 19-20; Job 38: 5-7
Taylor never visited the Pyramid, but the more he studied its structure, the more he became convinced that its architect was not an Egyptian, but an Israelite acting under divine orders. Perhaps it was Noah himself."
Harte: AE for the GP is "Khufu's Horizon."
(Emphasis mine).
'Mountain with the Rising Sun'
Ideogram in 3ht, 'horizon'
The sign 3ht, born of the union of the disk and the hieroglyph for mountain, is rather inappropriately translated as 'horizon,' associating it with a modern notion which is foreign to Egyptian thinking.
The sign is a relatively recent creation of Egyptian writing, unknown in the Pyramid Texts, in which the sign that determines the word 3ht is the hieroglyph of a sandy island. The earliest known documentation of the sign is from the Fifth Dynasty, an epoch that saw the official affirmation of the solar cult. Thus the hieroglyph represents the point where the sun appears above the earth at daybreak and where it touches the earth again at sunset. This is the proper meaning of the ideogram, connected to the root 3h, 'to shine'.
The dualistic nature of the sign is made clear by the symbolic portrayal in which two human or mummified figures are placed on the two slopes of the sign. - Maria Carmela Betro, 'Hieroglyphics', page 161.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
What is even more curious is that the word 'Khufu' in modern Egyptian-Arabic means - guess what...........?
It means 'horizon' and is written 'oufou'k' (a variant reverse spelling of 'Khufu'). In modern Hebrew the word 'horizon' is written as 'Ofek' (another reverse variant spelling).
So, 'Akhet Khufu' could actually mean the 'rising/setting place [Akhet] on the horizon [Khufu]'.
Seems to me the Egyptologists have perhaps lost something in translation along the way.