Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Men Who Vandalized Great Pyramid To Prove 'Theory' Face Charges

page: 10
73
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Scott, what you are failing to address is that there are other means than "Scientific testing" to validate the inscriptions or archeological discoveries in general. 99% of archeological discoveries have never been radiocarbon dated, relying on a proven system of the following disciplines to place them in their correct context (to name just a few):
-stratigraphy
-archaeobotany
-osteoarchaeology
-zooarchaeology
-ceramics
-epigraphy
-lithics

Epigraphy helps determine that the inscriptions belong to a certain time frame, it fills in the who/what/where.

It also tells us that Vyse could NOT have faked the inscriptions, since the language of the hieroglyphics and the Horus name of Khufu was unknown at the time.

What Sitchin and the "Forgery" theorists refuse to acknowledge is this:

Among the hieroglyphics found there is also the Horus name for Pharaoh Khufu. The Horus name was the most important name of the king, because it expressed a kind of political program. The Horus name for Khufu is Medjedu or Hor-Medjedu, and can be roughly translated as "hit a target" or "follow a path". This name is spelled differently than the birth name, and is NOT encased in an oval cartouche, but in a rectangle with a hawk sitting on it. No one in 1837 had the knowledge to recognize the Horus name of Khufu. Since it was not in a cartouche, it would not have been recognized as a royal name by explorer's in 1837, who only just began understanding hieroglyphs 10 years prior.

The Horus name was chosen by Khufu himself, but lost after the fifth dynasty (around 2400 BC). As the name lost importance to later generations, it was no longer included in the kings lists, referencing him only by his birth name. So neither Vyse, Perring, Raven, Hill had any knowledge of "Hor-Medjedu", the hieroglyphs were unrecognized, since they knew of only the names of the pharaohs from the much later authored king's lists.

The Horus name "Medjedu" is not isolated, it is integrated into a complete sentence, and would have been very unlikely it could have been copied by Vyse from anywhere else.

The first instances of the Horus name being associated with Khufu occurred with discoveries by Karl Richard Lepsius in 1845 and Flinders-Petrie in 1883. Prior to that this name was not recognized. More recently it was discovered by Carlo Bergman (2010) found an inscription in the Libyan desert bearing the Horus name of Khufu, mentioning the 27th year of his reign.

Now, how would you like to refute this piece of evidence? Let's not worry about the other evidence regarding the validity of the inscriptions, let's hear how you dismiss this one.




posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


And still we have Creighton hyping up this dubious fifth-hand tale as “evidence of an eye-witness”.

A reminder for reference:

Humphries Brewer → William Marchant Brewer → Helen Pattengill (née Brewer) → Walter’s mother → Walter M. Allen

And again we find him recycling one of many mutually contradictory rumours and ignoring the more robust indications that the sample taken by Görlitz was too small (too carbon-poor) for dating.

M.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mstower
 



And again we find him recycling one of many mutually contradictory rumours and ignoring the more robust indications that the sample taken by Görlitz was too small (too carbon-poor) for dating.


And that's assuming this whole thing wasn't a publicity stunt, trying to drum up attention for their next film project.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


You're creating a fantasy You say it could have been forged but these maks go under rocks weighing tons, So unless you're trying to convince us that he built the pyramids your argument doesn't stand up. As far as the hieroglyphs the pyramid itself has been carbon dated. So if we know the marks were put there at construction and we can date the construction why destroy the hieroglyphs to date them? Thats even assuming they could get an accurate reading since all the contamination from other carbon sources.Thats why to date the great pyramid they used mortar knowing that it hadnt been contaminated. So bottom line is your proposing a useless test to create doubt. However You have not one piece of archeological evidence showing the pyramid is older than the 4th dynasty.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Hello Blackmarketeer,


BM: The Horus name "Medjedu" is not isolated, it is integrated into a complete sentence, and would have been very unlikely it could have been copied by Vyse from anywhere else.


SC: It is not at all unusual to find the birth and throne names of an AE king together. As long as Howard-Vyse can recognise the name 'Khufu' (which as stated earlier in the thread, was published by Rosellini about 5 years before the Relieving Chambers were opened by Howard-Vyse), that is all he needs. The 'Khufu' cartouche is his 'starter-for-ten'. It is all he really needs in order to identify appropriate pieces of text (regardless of what they actually say--it simply doesn't matter to him). He simply copies whatever else happens to be in the text he may have found from elsewhere (including the throne name). As stated, he doesn't actually have to know what the text says--all he needs to know is that it relates to 'Khufu' .

As for copying--from the drawings made by Howard-Vyse in his personal journal and those made by Mr Hill that are now in the British Museum, it is clear that they were both very good at copying AE script. This would not have been a problem to them.

I am not saying Howard-Vyse DID this, only that it is POSSIBLE that it could have been done by him. It is not the impossible task that orthodox thinking has long held it to be. In order for Howard-Vyse to be vindicated and the inscriptions authenticated, we need to do proper scientific analysis of the paint pigment (and any other appropriate scientific tests). There is, imo, simply too much doubt over these inscriptions. We need another, independent and impartial witness--modern science.

Regards,

SC
edit on 12/3/2014 by Scott Creighton because: Clarification.
edit on 12/3/2014 by Scott Creighton because: Fix typo.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Blackmarketeer
reply to post by mstower
 



And again we find him recycling one of many mutually contradictory rumours and ignoring the more robust indications that the sample taken by Görlitz was too small (too carbon-poor) for dating.


And that's assuming this whole thing wasn't a publicity stunt, trying to drum up attention for their next film project.

On which point, this “centuries old” thing of which Creighton has made so much comes from a garbled and dubiously accurate media report of what Görlitz and Erdmann said they did.

M.
edit on 12-3-2014 by mstower because: a change in tense.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Creighton’s explanation (borrowed from the late Mr Alford): dumb luck.

Through dumb luck Vyse found undiscovered inscriptions which were just right to copy into the pyramid; through dumb luck he chose them (in preference to others); through dumb luck no one caught him doing it.

Most inscriptions with the name Khufu in them (of which there are lots at Giza) would have been wildly inappropriate. Lucky old Vyse!

Had Creighton the wit to realise it, he’s presented a case for the incredibility of any such thing happening.

M.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

mstower
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Creighton’s explanation (borrowed from the late Mr Alford): dumb luck.

Through dumb luck Vyse found undiscovered inscriptions which were just right to copy into the pyramid; through dumb luck he chose them (in preference to others); through dumb luck no one caught him doing it.

Most inscriptions with the name Khufu in them (of which there are lots at Giza) would have been wildly inappropriate. Lucky old Vyse!

Had Creighton the wit to realise it, he’s presented a case for the incredibility of any such thing happening.

M.



Hello mstower,

And around the merry-go-round we go. However unlikely you think the means to forgery may have been, that doesn't make it impossible. According to one source (Walter Allen's logbook) there was an eye-witness to the forgery having taken place. So yes, let us scientifically scrutinise Allen's logbook but let us scrutinise the paint in those chambers too.

Regards,

SC



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


That would have, at best, given Vyse an example of Khufu's royal birth name in a cartouche. It does not give him an example of his Horus name, unknown at the time. Rosselini's book would not have given him the understanding of linear hieroglyphs, to construct phrases and sentences, some of which contain Khufu's unknown Horus name Medjedu.

Sitchin, since this is his forgery theory, even claimed that the reasons the graffiti runs upside down or sideways is because Vyse or Hill couldn't stand erect in the cramped space! Now, of course if the stones were marked by workgangs in the quarries before they were set in place, we could reasonably expect the graffiti to end up in haphazard arrangement, exactly as we see - upside down, sideways, running behind other blocks, running into joints and covered with ancient mortar. Sitchin's theory, and those clinging to it, borders on the absurd, that Vyse had to forge his cartouche SIDEWAYS because he couldn't stand up!



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


I guess when the pyramid itself was "scientifically scrutinise(d)" and produced radiocarbon dates that didn't meet with your expectations those were easily tossed aside?



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


“X said that there was an eyewitness” and “there was an eyewitness” are not the same thing. I suggest you learn the difference.

What exactly is our eyewitness supposed to have witnessed? Not forgery.

We’re to understand that Humphries Brewer was a sharp-eyed fellow with a good visual memory who could see that some of the markings (which?) had been repainted and some of them (which?) were where no markings had been before. Given the profusion of markings (especially in Lady Arbuthnot’s), this would require a very good visual memory.

So where’s the detail on this? Give one single specific example. Can you?

Why, if Humphries Brewer cared so much—cared enough to have a stand-up row with Hill and Raven—did he not leave a single document, a single drawing? Why didn’t he tell “his former professor” Lepsius? Why did he say nothing even after leaving England (in 1849)? Even after Howard Vyse had died (in 1853)?

Remember that the story about his writing this down in letters home is entirely Sitchin’s invention. The “logbook” mentions letters but does not say that they had anything to do with the Egyptian episode.

M.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Blackmarketeer
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


I guess when the pyramid itself was "scientifically scrutinise(d)" and produced radiocarbon dates that didn't meet with your expectations those were easily tossed aside?


Hello Blackmarketeer,

Interesting that you should raise this. Here is what good old Dr. Hawass has to say on the matter:


Hawass remains categorical in his rejection of the [C14 dating] technique: "Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology... carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Dr Zahi Hawass, Egypt Independent.


SC: I have to ask myself, why is Hawass so disparaging and dismissive of the science of C14 dating? Could it perhaps be because he has himself taken paint from the Khufu cartouche in the GP, had it C14 dated and received back a result (C14 date) he doesn't agree with? It does look like parts of the cartouche have gone missing in the last decade or so (before the Goerlitz and Erdmann theft).

Regards,

SC



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

mstower
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


“X said that there was an eyewitness” and “there was an eyewitness” are not the same thing. I suggest you learn the difference.

What exactly is our eyewitness supposed to have witnessed? Not forgery.

We’re to understand that Humphries Brewer was a sharp-eyed fellow with a good visual memory who could see that some of the markings (which?) had been repainted and some of them (which?) were where no markings had been before. Given the profusion of markings (especially in Lady Arbuthnot’s), this would require a very good visual memory.

So where’s the detail on this? Give one single specific example. Can you?

Why, if Humphries Brewer cared so much—cared enough to have a stand-up row with Hill and Raven—did he not leave a single document, a single drawing? Why didn’t he tell “his former professor” Lepsius? Why did he say nothing even after leaving England (in 1849)? Even after Howard Vyse had died (in 1853)?

Remember that the story about his writing this down in letters home is entirely Sitchin’s invention. The “logbook” mentions letters but does not say that they had anything to do with the Egyptian episode.

M.


Hello mstower,

Like I said--around in circles we go.

Regards,

SC



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


You are taking Hawass out of context, as he stated, radiocarbon dating (when he gave that quote) could be wrong by hundreds or even thousands or years.

From another link you posted:


British and American scientists have found radio carbon dating, used to give a rough guide to the age of an object, can be wrong by thousands of years.



Experts have known for years that carbon dating is inexact but until researchers from Bristol and Harvard completed their study no one knew by how much.



... They found that the carbon dates were wrong by thousands of years and that the further back in time they went, the more out-of-date they were.

The reason is that carbon dating measures radioactive carbon and there may have been much more of it in the distant past than previously thought.


Radiocarbon dating is not a magic wand, as you seem to think it is. It incorporates errors since we can never be certain contamination hasn't occurred. Until recently it wasn't known how much the atmosphere carbon content varies, also producing wide margins or errors.

Yet, even so, a radiocarbon dating of the Great Pyramid has been done (twice), producing dates very close to the 4th Dynasty, and what margin or error there is could be contributed to the use of ancient firewood in the making of it's gypsum mortar.

You conjecture regarding Hawass and the paint is just that - conjecture.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mstower
 



Why, if Humphries Brewer cared so much—cared enough to have a stand-up row with Hill and Raven—did he not leave a single document, a single drawing? Why didn’t he tell “his former professor” Lepsius? Why did he say nothing even after leaving England (in 1849)? Even after Howard Vyse had died (in 1853)?


Not to mention, the vagueness of this entry in a logbook dated 1954 (of which only Sitchin has ever seen) makes no mention of WHICH pyramid or site it refers to.

Vyse opened and explored 9 pyramids, the Sphinx, and valley temples. Yet Allen produces one note that just happens to zero in on Sitchin's claims.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Scott Creighton

Blackmarketeer
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


I guess when the pyramid itself was "scientifically scrutinise(d)" and produced radiocarbon dates that didn't meet with your expectations those were easily tossed aside?


Hello Blackmarketeer,

Interesting that you should raise this. Here is what good old Dr. Hawass has to say on the matter:


Hawass remains categorical in his rejection of the [C14 dating] technique: "Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology... carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Dr Zahi Hawass, Egypt Independent.


SC: I have to ask myself, why is Hawass so disparaging and dismissive of the science of C14 dating? Could it perhaps be because he has himself taken paint from the Khufu cartouche in the GP, had it C14 dated and received back a result (C14 date) he doesn't agree with? It does look like parts of the cartouche have gone missing in the last decade or so (before the Goerlitz and Erdmann theft).

Regards,

SC



Thats because hes right carbon 14 dating is unreliable even giving wrong reading for object that we know when and where they were created. Science is moving away from carbon 14 now preferring to use uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40 if you date the rock the object came from gives you a great idea of its age. But carbon 14 is funny if i went to buy a hammer from the store and radiocarbon date it today it would tell me that hammer is hundreds of years old. The reason is carbon 14 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically during the 20th century. Which tells us its not a consistent form of measurement making it wrong more than its right. About half of all carbon 14 dates is just thrown out because they will be too young or too old to match known sites. A freshly killed seal, dated using Carbon-14, showed it had died 1300 years ago. Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2,300 years old. Some very unusual evidence is that living snails' shells showed that they had died 27,000 years ago.
edit on 3/12/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Here is a link to a Web page that goes over the Vyse-Sitchin controversy in exquisite detail, more than I can go over here.

The Horus-Name
(Pyramidengeheimnisse.de)

MUST reading no matter what side of the camp you are on.

Martin S., nice to see you there as well!



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Vague and noncommittal. One could scarcely hedge more thoroughly if one tried.

We’re invited to assume that the royal names were new—but it doesn’t say this. We are offered other options. Faint marks were repainted and some were new: two options. The third is the implicit default, with which the others contrast: unaltered marks.

The story tells us nothing about which class the royal names are in.

Consider also the point I raised here:

http: //www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?s=a932f0de0a0e6cf529a9b28a7cbf9de3&showtopic=172788&st=450#entry4760206

Allen presented his story as compatible with what Vyse wrote.

M.

edit on 12-3-2014 by mstower because: of a misparsed URL and other things.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mstower
 


Hi Martin this should be a working link for the above;

Unexplained Mysteries Link

ETA: that thread on UM seems to cover this topic in far greater detail...
edit on 12-3-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Hello Posters,

This has been a fabulous thread and I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussion. I think we have brought many interesting points to the discussion table and although we may share different views I think that with discussions like this we are probably better equipped than anyone else to find a definitive answer to these taxing questions. That may take time, of course, but I am sure at the end of the day, by pooling our knowledge and with a sense of goodwill and respect for historical truth, the posters here at ATS may get nearer to the truth of this question than anyone else. For my part I fully intend to research these issues much further over the weeks and months ahead and, with a lucky turn of the spade, will hopefully be able to bring more to the table that might help us reach our shared goal of determining the truth in all this. Naturally, I shall share whatever relevant material I uncover.

I have to depart now from the discussion as I have some pressing deadlines to meet. But thanks again everyone for a very interesting, informative and lively discussion. Together we will get there.

Regards,

SC
edit on 13/3/2014 by Scott Creighton because: Fix typo.





new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join