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.

 

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

page: 6
73
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

mblahnikluver
***For those arguing they didn't have permission or a permit, yes they did. Go to about 10:30 mins into the first video and Bauval shows the permit these two had to enter the pyramid.
edit on 3/2/2014 by mblahnikluver because: add last part about permit.


Did they have permission to attack the inscriptions with a chisel?

If not, I fail to see the relevance of the point.

M.




posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

mstower

mblahnikluver
***For those arguing they didn't have permission or a permit, yes they did. Go to about 10:30 mins into the first video and Bauval shows the permit these two had to enter the pyramid.
edit on 3/2/2014 by mblahnikluver because: add last part about permit.


Did they have permission to attack the inscriptions with a chisel?

If not, I fail to see the relevance of the point.

M.


No, they did not have permission to touch anything there, they were part of a tour group of the Giza plateau which is now furious about their vandalism. The tour group did not have permission to enter the relieving chambers at all, so they must have sneaked in past what little security they have there. This was a release from an Egyptian site, I copied it here in full translated;


It seems that the curse of the Pharaohs has arrived at the ancient Egyptian monuments. The Great Pyramid of the Fourth Dynasty of King Khufu was not the only monument subjected to damage by two amateur German archaeologists from Dresden University, who stole samples of a cartouche of Khufu from a small room on top of the king’s burial chamber and smuggled them to Germany for analysis.

Archaeological inspection carried out by the Ministry of State for Antiquities (MSA) uncovered three other archaeological sites subjected to damage and looting [by the same two men]. These sites, said Mohamed Abdel-Maksoud, head of the Ancient Egyptian Section, are a birds’ necropolis at the Giza Plateau, the restoration laboratory of the Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) overlooking the Giza Plateau, and the MSA’s 15 May quarry.

Abdel-Maksoud said one of the German amateur archaeologists had succeeded in entering the rest-house of Cairo University at the plateau and copied the archaeological archive of the discoveries of the renowned archaeologist Selim Hassan.

Abdel-Maksoud said the incident happened during the second half of 2011 because of a lack of security following the January 2011 Revolution.

According to documents that Al-Ahram Weekly obtained a copy of, both amateur archaeologists entered the archaeological sites twice — one as part a group of German tourists on a private visit and the second time among a group of researchers producing a documentary on Ancient Egyptian monuments.

Both groups presented official requests to the MSA and received the approval of the secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities after paying the LE5,000 fee.

But how they got into the five small rooms on top of the king’s burial chamber and the GEM laboratory and the quarry, even though these sites are off the beaten tourist path and prohibited from entry except for specialists, is unclear. Investigations are currently being conducted.

Until answers come up, the MSA has imposed penalties and taken legal action against both archaeologists, Dominique Goerlitz and author Stefan Erdmann, as well as against Dresden University. It has also suspended scientific cooperation with the university as well as with the German laboratory that analysed the stolen items from Khufu’s Pyramid.

Minister of State for Antiquities Mohamed Ibrahim announced that the ministry imposed a number of penalties against the Germans, their university and the tourism agency that had taken them on a tour around the plateau. The case was also sent to the prosecutor-general for investigation. Interpol has been notified to put the German archaeologists on Egypt’s airport watch list.

Ibrahim also decided to ban private visits to any archaeological sites in Egypt unless it has the approval of the MSA’s Permanent Committee and concerned authorities.

Abdel-Maksoud asserted that the results announced by the Germans are false and not scientifically correct. The results of both Germans cast doubt on the construction date of the Great Pyramid and consequently the Pharaoh for which it was built. It suggests that the pyramid was built in an era preceding Khufu’s reign and the pyramid itself is not the burial place for a king but a centre of power.

He explained that a number of scientific researches from the past two centuries show that the Great Pyramid belongs to King Khufu, and that it was built during his reign to be used as his royal burial place for eternity. The cartouche that the German archaeologists sampled was written in red by the Great Pyramid builders in the 17th year of Khufu’s reign as was the custom at that time. Workers used to write on the walls of the structures they built in order to assert their belonging to an individual or king. Such cartouches were found in the entrance of Khufu’s solar boat pit.

Abdel-Maksoud pointed out the discovery of the tomb of Khufu’s mother, Queen Hetep Heres, to the east of the Great Pyramid by archaeologist George Raisner as another reason confirming that the Great Pyramid belonged to Khufu. According to the ancient Egyptian religious rituals the pyramid cannot be built alone because it is not a sole object but an inter-connected structural complex including the pyramid itself, the funerary temple, the side pyramid, solar boat pits, the ramp and the valley temple.

Greek historian Herodotus, who visited Egypt during the fifth century BC, wrote in his diary that the ramp of King Khufu’s Pyramid took 20 years of construction and its walls were painted with scenes from Khufu’s era. The original blocks, many of which bore the king’s name, were reused in the construction of the Pyramids during the Middle Kingdom in the Lesht and Dahshur areas. Abdel-Maksoud asserted that scientific evidence shows that the pyramid builders’ necropolis was found at the eastern rock of the Giza Plateau in 1990, and that each tomb contains details of its owner and his job description, as well as his or her skeleton and funerary collection.

“The most important archaeological evidence that Khufu is the king that built the Great Pyramid is the discovery made in 2012 by French archaeologist Pierre Tallet in a rock cave at Wadi Al-Jarf, two kilometres south of Zaafarana, on the Red Sea,” Abdel-Maksoud concluded. He added that Tallet found a collection of papyri dating to the reign of King Khufu mentioning the number of workers, artisans and boats that were used to transport the Pyramid’s blocks to the Giza Plateau. According to studies carried out by the French mission, these papyri were part of the diary of an engineer who was involved in the construction of the Great Pyramid. The papyri also show the engineer’s working plan and a description of the way the ancient Egyptians transported the blocks. Abdel-Maksoud added that German archaeologist Rudolf Cooper also uncovered graffiti in the Western Desert at the Dakhla oasis revealing that Khufu and his son Djedef Re sent missions to import colours and oxides for decorating the Pyramid’s inner walls.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   

mstower

mblahnikluver
***For those arguing they didn't have permission or a permit, yes they did. Go to about 10:30 mins into the first video and Bauval shows the permit these two had to enter the pyramid.
edit on 3/2/2014 by mblahnikluver because: add last part about permit.


Did they have permission to attack the inscriptions with a chisel?

If not, I fail to see the relevance of the point.

M.


They didn't attack anything with a chisel. They took a small sample of the red paint that was there. They didn't chisel anything. The part they are being accused of ruining was ALREADY ruined when they got there.

I have been following this since it started on FB back in December via Robert Bauval's FB posts and one of the scientists being accused. I have both of them on my FB and both have posted a lot of information about what is going on. If you cared to read any links or posts I have made in this thread you could see for yourself.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


They didn't vandalize anything! They took a few milliliters of paint, that is far from vandalism. They had permission to be in the Pyramid as well. They were not the first to access the chambers either, many others who had been granted private visits also ventured into the chambers. These men are being falsely accused by that hack HawASS. I remember the first posting Bauval made about this. He was furious at the claims HawASS made against him, which were untrue.

The cartouche was already damaged prior to them ever being there.
Great Pyramid? Who Damaged The Khufu Cartouche?



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


How come all scientists and historians ignore the fact that the insides of the great pyramid are made from perfectly cut granite blocks?
Yet the same people would have you believe the builders of the pyramids used copper hand tools to cut and shape the stones....*facepalm*



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   

SKUNK2
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


How come all scientists and historians ignore the fact that the insides of the great pyramid are made from perfectly cut granite blocks?


That could just be because the insides are not made from perfectly cut granite.

SKUNK2Yet the same people would have you believe the builders of the pyramids used copper hand tools to cut and shape the stones....*facepalm*

"Facepalm" is certainly called for here because no Egyptologist "would have you believe" this.

First, the Egyptians were making bronze for hundreds of years (3100 BC) before pyramids were being built.

Second, granite was quarried and shaped with diorite pounding stones, and smoothed with sand and rubbing stones. This is not a theory, as the AE's left artwork depicting the process and left hundreds of diorite pounders in their quarries, along with partially pounded-out granite blocks.

The more pertinant question is not "How come all scientists and historians ignore the fact ..." but how come people who pretend to have an interest in Ancient Egypt refuse to even attempt to discover what is actually known about the Ancient Egyptian culture?

Harte



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 



They didn't vandalize anything! They took a few milliliters of paint, that is far from vandalism. They had permission to be in the Pyramid as well.


Well then let's ALL go to the Great Pyramid and take a "few milliliters of paint" from the cartouches there - then let's see how long those cartouches will last. 10 years? 15? Maybe 20 before they're all gone.

They're 4,000 years old and irreplaceable. Some renaissance sites in Italy won't allow people in to see the frescoes because human breathing is damaging them and those are only 500 hundred years old. But no, let's let every idiot with a pet theory on the pyramids in to take a scraping or two of the cartouches. In fact let's turn Giza into a great souvenir hunt, but better hurry, they won't last long, I personally fancy a chunk of the Sphinx's ass for my coffee table.


They were not the first to access the chambers either, many others who had been granted private visits also ventured into the chambers.


What is your point? Others have been inside the relieving chambers but no one in recent times has gone in their with the intent to damage the walls, either.

The method used by these two idiots (handling the samples they took with their bare hands, scraping across rock and mortar with no care about mixing, no statistical analysis, etc.) pretty well guaranteed the results were going to be garbage anyhow. So all they did was vandalize them.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Harte

First, the Egyptians were making bronze for hundreds of years (3100 BC) before pyramids were being built.

Second, granite was quarried and shaped with diorite pounding stones, and smoothed with sand and rubbing stones. This is not a theory, as the AE's left artwork depicting the process and left hundreds of diorite pounders in their quarries, along with partially pounded-out granite blocks.

The more pertinant question is not "How come all scientists and historians ignore the fact ..." but how come people who pretend to have an interest in Ancient Egypt refuse to even attempt to discover what is actually known about the Ancient Egyptian culture?

Harte

They have not refused to attempt to learn what is actually known. What you cannot seem to grasp is that these people are as familiar with the facts as mainstream Egyptologists. But they have rejected the explanations of Egyptologists about how the Great Pyramid was constructed as ludicrous and unbelievable. Your attempt to paint them as ignorant just does not wash. It's a vacuous ad hominem made to create the illusion of intellectual superiority. Believing that ancient Egyptian artwork depicting their construction methods proves that they built the Great Pyramid simply begs the question. Maybe it was already there and the ancient Egyptians added artwork to make posterity believe that they were its builders by adding this artwork. Such sloppy thinking by mainstream Egyptologists can only be cleared up by scientific tests such as carbon dating. They had plenty of opportunity to do this but never did. Why? Because they were scared stiff that their assumptions would be proved false and their academic reputations discredited. In a recent interview on the Just Enery Radio Show (justenergyradio.com...), Robert Bauval says that he found photographic evidence proving that Dr Hawass KNEW the Khufu Pyramid cartouche was already damaged years before he recently falsely accused Bauval. This is consistent with Hawass knowing the results of a carbon dating of a sample taken from the cartouche but not being able to announce it because it showed the cartouche was not old but faked in 1837 by Colonel Howard Vyse, who needed more funding for his research, thereby eliminating the only evidence that the pyramid was built by Khufu.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

micpsi

Harte

First, the Egyptians were making bronze for hundreds of years (3100 BC) before pyramids were being built.

Second, granite was quarried and shaped with diorite pounding stones, and smoothed with sand and rubbing stones. This is not a theory, as the AE's left artwork depicting the process and left hundreds of diorite pounders in their quarries, along with partially pounded-out granite blocks.

The more pertinant question is not "How come all scientists and historians ignore the fact ..." but how come people who pretend to have an interest in Ancient Egypt refuse to even attempt to discover what is actually known about the Ancient Egyptian culture?

Harte

They have not refused to attempt to learn what is actually known. What you cannot seem to grasp is that these people are as familiar with the facts as mainstream Egyptologists. But they have rejected the explanations of Egyptologists about how the Great Pyramid was constructed as ludicrous and unbelievable.

So, they reject reality - that the "insides of the pyramids" are not "all" granite?
They reject the fact that the Bronze Age began in Ancient Egypt before the year 3,000 BC?
They reject the fact that there exist Ancient Egyptian artworks depicting the quarrying and shaping/smoothing process?
They reject the hundreds of diorite pounders found in Egyptian granite quarries, and the "scoop"-like marks left by these pounders in the quarry where granite has been removed, and even on existing granite blocks in these quarries that were never removed?

Seems like they object to the real world so that they may live in their fantasyland.

Or, like I said, they aren't actually interested in the culture at all - they are simply interested in lying about that culture to make it seem more likely that the Egyptians had high tech or alien help.


micpsi
Your attempt to paint them as ignorant just does not wash. It's a vacuous ad hominem made to create the illusion of intellectual superiority. Believing that ancient Egyptian artwork depicting their construction methods proves that they built the Great Pyramid simply begs the question. Maybe it was already there and the ancient Egyptians added artwork to make posterity believe that they were its builders by adding this artwork.

More ignorance.
Glyphs in the relieving chambers are proof that Egyptians were in them before they were completed. Each chamber had to be blown open with black powder before it could be accessed and some of the glyphs found inside were unknown at the time but were later confirmed at other archaeological sites in Egypt.


micpsi
Such sloppy thinking by mainstream Egyptologists can only be cleared up by scientific tests such as carbon dating. They had plenty of opportunity to do this but never did. Why? Because they were scared stiff that their assumptions would be proved false and their academic reputations discredited.

Now I see why you defend ignorance here at ATS (even though it is diametrically opposite to the site's motto for you to do so.)
You consider "ignorant" an ad hominem. However, "ignorant" has a definition and it is perfectly applicable in this case, as well as in every case where I use it.

Ignorance has a cure, if you'll take it. Your own ignorance in this area is quite apparent. Anyone that reads much at ATS should already know - and have read several times over - the results of the two,seperate C14 assays of all the sites at Giza. In the cases of the pyramids, two different teams a decade or so apart sampled the carbon particles leftover in the mortar between the stones. Carbon left behind from wood burned in the process of making the mortar.

So, here you completely and utterly manufacture a falsehood concerning Giza. I can only assume you do this for the same reasons I laid out above concerning your fantasyland choice of reality.

Also, please note - I didn't address the fact that the pyramids were built by Egyptians in my post to which you responded, though they absolutely did.


micpsi
In a recent interview on the Just Enery Radio Show (justenergyradio.com...), Robert Bauval says that he found photographic evidence proving that Dr Hawass KNEW the Khufu Pyramid cartouche was already damaged years before he recently falsely accused Bauval. This is consistent with Hawass knowing the results of a carbon dating of a sample taken from the cartouche but not being able to announce it because it showed the cartouche was not old but faked in 1837 by Colonel Howard Vyse, who needed more funding for his research, thereby eliminating the only evidence that the pyramid was built by Khufu.

The claim that Vyse forged anything at all has no basis. For example, how could Vyse "forge" a glyph that the entire field of Egyptology was unaware of and had never seen before?

It pays to find out at least a few facts before opining in an area in which you posses not a whit of knowledge.

Harte



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


If I might interject here with a few pertinent points. Hope you don’t mind.


Harte: Glyphs in the relieving chambers are proof that Egyptians were in them before they were completed. Each chamber had to be blown open with black powder before it could be accessed and some of the glyphs found inside were unknown at the time but were later confirmed at other archaeological sites in Egypt.


SC: Whilst it may be suggestive, it is far from conclusive. These markings could have been faked by Howard-Vyse—a proven fraudster—when he blasted his way into these hidden chambers in 1837. There is even an eye-witness account of his team painting marks inside the Great Pyramid. And yes—even those markings that are found in the tight gaps between granite blocks where no forger could possibly take a brush could also have been faked and quite easily so. A little lateral thinking goes a long way and makes for a truly convincing result.

What I find curious also in this regard are the markings in the small cavity found at the end of the southern shaft of the so-called Queen's Chamber. Why is it that we can so easily and readily read the inscriptions in the upper 'Relieving Chambers' that Howard-Vyse accessed but have problems reading the few inscriptions in the small cavity at the end of this shaft that have been accessed only by a tiny robot since they were first sealed.


Harte: Anyone that reads much at ATS should already know - and have read several times over - the results of the two, seperate C14 assays of all the sites at Giza. In the cases of the pyramids, two different teams a decade or so apart sampled the carbon particles leftover in the mortar between the stones. Carbon left behind from wood burned in the process of making the mortar.


SC: Many here at ATS will be aware of those studies and some may even be aware of the extensive evidence all over Giza of reparation works to various monuments there. I wonder though how many will be aware of Zahi Hawass’s views on the C14 dating technique?


”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.


Why such disparaging remarks? Might it perhaps be because Hawass took his own sample of the cartouche to have sampled and didn't like the result that came back? Is Hawass perhaps frantically attempting to deflect attention away from past actions of his own with regards to the Khufu cartouche that he perhaps wishes to keep under wraps? Alas, it may do him little good because at least one report of the unauthorized sample taken by Goerlitz and Erdmann claims that the sample was indeed tested and that the paint was only centuries old. When I followed this report up with the German lab involved in the testing, they would not confirm or deny anything.


Harte: The claim that Vyse forged anything at all has no basis. For example, how could Vyse "forge" a glyph that the entire field of Egyptology was unaware of and had never seen before?


SC: Even before he ever set foot in Egypt Howard-Vyse was a known fraudster and was lucky not to have gone to jail for previous fraudulent activities. Furthermore, the Khufu cartouche was published (properly) by Rosellini 5 years before Howard-Vyse ever arrived in Egypt. That was Howard-Vyse’s ‘starter for ten’. He knew the cartouche to look for. When he finds the Khufu cartouche on some inscriptions on stone tablets or blocks elsewhere outside the pyramid, he simply copies these and has Hill and Raven paint them into the Pyramid (as testified by Humphries Brewer). Howard-Vyse didn’t need to know what the inscriptions actually said for he knew that whatever was being said it was related to Khufu, the one inscription he could read.

The history of this monument is not as clear-cut as you seem to be making out here.

edit on 4/3/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


You keep referring to Howard-Vyse as a "proven fraudster," yet outside the circular logic of Zecharia Sitchin there is no "proof" of his being a fraudster. Sitchin is the sole source of the claim that Vyse 'forged' or faked the workmen graffiti.

Throwing around arguments like "we know he faked these because he's a proven fraudster," is bunk. (i.e.; "He faked the inscription because he's a proven fraudster" vis-a-vis "he's a proven fraudster because he faked the inscription...")

It also fails to address the fact that Vyse would not only have to be a fraudster but a clairvoyant fraudster to fake an inscription in a hieratic script unknown in his time.

A lot of people want the pyramids to be much older than they are. Thus, we get all this pseudobunkum attacking the science and proofs of their age.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Hi,


BM: You keep referring to Howard-Vyse as a "proven fraudster," yet outside the circular logic of Zecharia Sitchin there is no "proof" of his being a fraudster. Sitchin is the sole source of the claim that Vyse 'forged' or faked the workmen graffiti.

Throwing around arguments like "we know he faked these because he's a proven fraudster," is bunk. (i.e.; "He faked the inscription because he's a proven fraudster" vis-a-vis "he's a proven fraudster because he faked the inscription...")


SC: Nothing circular about it as this has nothing to do with Sitchin’s claim. Howard-Vyse is a proven fraudster because he committed electoral fraud in the United Kingdom constituency of Beverley in the Parliamentary Election of 8th May, 1807 in order to win the seat. He bought over 900 votes, a practice that was illegal at the time. He won the seat by fraudulent means. He did what it took to get what he wanted.


BM: It also fails to address the fact that Vyse would not only have to be a fraudster but a clairvoyant fraudster to fake an inscription in a hieratic script unknown in his time.


SC: He was a fraudster. And see my earlier post about finding material from elsewhere outside the pyramid and having Hill and Raven copy it into the pyramid. All Howard-Vyse needed to recognize was the cartouche of Khufu which, as I said earlier, had been properly rendered and published by Rosellini a full 5 years before Howard-Vyse ever set foot in Egypt. Whatever text went alongside the cartouche—even although he had no idea what was being said—would be copied.


BM: A lot of people want the pyramids to be much older than they are. Thus, we get all this pseudobunkum attacking the science and proofs of their age.


SC: Actually, I think most people would just like it if science was actually allowed to prove what Egyptologists are claiming. Care to take a test sample of ochre paint for testing, anyone? Is that too much to ask?

Regards,

SC
edit on 4/3/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/3/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/3/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Scott Creighton
If I might interject here with a few pertinent points. Hope you don’t mind.


Harte: Glyphs in the relieving chambers are proof that Egyptians were in them before they were completed. Each chamber had to be blown open with black powder before it could be accessed and some of the glyphs found inside were unknown at the time but were later confirmed at other archaeological sites in Egypt.


SC: Whilst it may be suggestive, it is far from conclusive. These markings could have been faked by Howard-Vyse—a proven fraudster—when he blasted his way into these hidden chambers in 1837. There is even an eye-witness account of his team painting marks inside the Great Pyramid. And yes—even those markings that are found in the tight gaps between granite blocks where no forger could possibly take a brush could also have been faked and quite easily so. A little lateral thinking goes a long way and makes for a truly convincing result.

Do you suggest that every hieroglyph in each chamber was forged?
If not, then your own pet theory regarding the identity of Khufu is not material to the argument I'm making.
Not, that is, unless somebody wants to argue that Egyptian hieroglyphs were in use 10,000 years ago, and (unless you've changed your mind) I know that you won't argue that. Last I recall, you place the Great Pyramid firmly in the Old Kingdom. Has this changed?


Scott CreightonWhat I find curious also in this regard are the markings in the small cavity found at the end of the southern shaft of the so-called Queen's Chamber. Why is it that we can so easily and readily read the inscriptions in the upper 'Relieving Chambers' that Howard-Vyse accessed but have problems reading the few inscriptions in the small cavity at the end of this shaft that have been accessed only by a tiny robot since they were first sealed.

That's a good question, and we can't know the answer. But, as I recall, the inscription in the shaft is on the underside of the stone above the shaft. Unless I'm wrong, might it not be that the inscription may have been put on the stone at the quarry (quarrymark) and then degraded as the stone was dragged up the ramp and into place? Just a guess.


Scott Creighton

Harte: Anyone that reads much at ATS should already know - and have read several times over - the results of the two, seperate C14 assays of all the sites at Giza. In the cases of the pyramids, two different teams a decade or so apart sampled the carbon particles leftover in the mortar between the stones. Carbon left behind from wood burned in the process of making the mortar.


SC: Many here at ATS will be aware of those studies and some may even be aware of the extensive evidence all over Giza of reparation works to various monuments there. I wonder though how many will be aware of Zahi Hawass’s views on the C14 dating technique?


”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.


Why such disparaging remarks? Might it perhaps be because Hawass took his own sample of the cartouche to have sampled and didn't like the result that came back? Is Hawass perhaps frantically attempting to deflect attention away from past actions of his own with regards to the Khufu cartouche that he perhaps wishes to keep under wraps? Alas, it may do him little good because at least one report of the unauthorized sample taken by Goerlitz and Erdmann claims that the sample was indeed tested and that the paint was only centuries old. When I followed this report up with the German lab involved in the testing, they would not confirm or deny anything.

You should use the "[ex]" tags for such quotes.

Please don't ask me to explain Hawass and his contradictory statements. Who on Earth can explain that guy? If you won 't, then i'll promise not to ask you to explain Graham Hancock and his contradictory statements. LOL


Scott Creighton

Harte: The claim that Vyse forged anything at all has no basis. For example, how could Vyse "forge" a glyph that the entire field of Egyptology was unaware of and had never seen before?


SC: Even before he ever set foot in Egypt Howard-Vyse was a known fraudster and was lucky not to have gone to jail for previous fraudulent activities. Furthermore, the Khufu cartouche was published (properly) by Rosellini 5 years before Howard-Vyse ever arrived in Egypt. That was Howard-Vyse’s ‘starter for ten’. He knew the cartouche to look for. When he finds the Khufu cartouche on some inscriptions on stone tablets or blocks elsewhere outside the pyramid, he simply copies these and has Hill and Raven paint them into the Pyramid (as testified by Humphries Brewer). Howard-Vyse didn’t need to know what the inscriptions actually said for he knew that whatever was being said it was related to Khufu, the one inscription he could read.

I've seen you post a pic from Rosellini's book: link
It's not in my "personal library" here so I can't post the pic - I've linked it. That pic shows the king's list sample of Khufu - with the solar disk glyph.

Now, if you have access, can you post a pic showing that Rosellini actually published Khufu's name - spelled with the hatched circle - in that book? I'm not saying he didn't. I've just never seen it.

Do you agree that the glyphs - all of them - actually say something? That is, if Vyse didn't know the language, how is it he was able to write quite legibly the names of the work gangs that are recorded there?

Aren't you aware that such markings have been found in other Egyptian pyramids, always in hard to get at places? Who forged those?

Lastly, what about the fact that Vyse found hieratic script instead of the more formal glyphs? Will you claim that, at the time, Egyptology was already aware that hieratic was in use in the 4th Dynasty? That is, if they were unaware (and some of the main objections at the time regarding Vyse's find were based on the "knowledge" that heiratic hadn't been developed in the 4th Dynasty,) why on Earth would a forger use a script that "everyone" knew at the time was not developed by the 4th Dynasty? Did he have a subconscious need to be caught?


Scott Creighton
The history of this monument is not as clear-cut as you seem to be making out here.

Yes, we both know that there is no such thing as a "clear-cut" history of anything. However, it is certainly clear enough that the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid, and through their own efforts and manpower. Many details, on the other hand, are certainly not clear.

Harte



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Hello Harte,


SC: Whilst it may be suggestive, it is far from conclusive. These markings could have been faked by Howard-Vyse—a proven fraudster—when he blasted his way into these hidden chambers in 1837. There is even an eye-witness account of his team painting marks inside the Great Pyramid. And yes—even those markings that are found in the tight gaps between granite blocks where no forger could possibly take a brush could also have been faked and quite easily so. A little lateral thinking goes a long way and makes for a truly convincing result.

Harte: Do you suggest that every hieroglyph in each chamber was forged?


SC: Well according to the testimony of Humphries Brewer (passed down to his great grand father, Walter Allen), some of the painted marks were new whilst some marks were repainted. Only with proper scientific analysis can we hope to determine which is which.


Harte: If not, then your own pet theory regarding the identity of Khufu is not material to the argument I'm making.


SC: Not quite sure what you mean but if it helps, my view has always been that Surid/Sophis/Khufu built the Great Pyramid.


Harte: Not, that is, unless somebody wants to argue that Egyptian hieroglyphs were in use 10,000 years ago, and (unless you've changed your mind) …


SC: Well, the ancient Egyptians would probably argue that because they tell us their civilization is tens of thousands of years old. Egyptologists simply dismiss it because the very idea doesn’t fit their own narrative.


Harte: I know that you won't argue that. Last I recall, you place the Great Pyramid firmly in the Old Kingdom. Has this changed?


SC: My view is stated clearly in my books—the pyramids are much older than 2,500 BCE. Previously I held the view that they were dated to ca. 4,000 BCE but have come across some further evidence at Giza which leads me to the conclusion that they are nearer 19,000 years old. I don’t expect you to accept that dating but that is neither here nor there. The evidence and argument for that date is presented in my forthcoming book, The Secret Chamber of Osiris.


Harte: Please don't ask me to explain Hawass and his contradictory statements.


SC: Fair enough. But this is a man who has probably sent more artefacts to have C14 dated than probably anyone alive today (and probably ever) and he considers C14 dating results to be “imaginary”. In my view Hawass has come to such a conclusion because either a) C14 dating is flawed or b) the orthodox chronology is flawed. I could be wrong but that’s my gut feeling—he’s had too many results back that don’t fit the conventional narrative.



Harte: I've seen you post a pic from Rosellini's book: link
It's not in my "personal library" here so I can't post the pic - I've linked it. That pic shows the king's list sample of Khufu - with the solar disk glyph.

Now, if you have access, can you post a pic showing that Rosellini actually published Khufu's name - spelled with the hatched circle - in that book? I'm not saying he didn't. I've just never seen it.


SC: Here it is:

Rosellini’s 1832 Book with Khufu Cartouche


Harte: Do you agree that the glyphs - all of them - actually say something? That is, if Vyse didn't know the language, how is it he was able to write quite legibly the names of the work gangs that are recorded there?


SC: Yes—and they say something about KHUFU. That is how Egyptology links the pyramid to this king. As long as Howard-Vyse can recognize the Khufu cartouche, he can copy any piece of text that contains the name Khufu. And often Khufu’s birth name will be placed alongside his Horus name in texts so it is not unsurprising to find the Horus name in these chambers either.


Harte: Aren't you aware that such markings have been found in other Egyptian pyramids, always in hard to get at places? Who forged those?


SC: I think you’re missing the point. It is not impossible to fake inscriptions in these hard-to-get-at places. It can be done. The question is whether or not it WAS done and WHAT was done (i.e. which are genuine and which are fake, if any)? I am simply saying we need to be doing more scientific analysis.


Harte: Lastly, what about the fact that Vyse found hieratic script instead of the more formal glyphs? Will you claim that, at the time, Egyptology was already aware that hieratic was in use in the 4th Dynasty? That is, if they were unaware (and some of the main objections at the time regarding Vyse's find were based on the "knowledge" that heiratic hadn't been developed in the 4th Dynasty,) why on Earth would a forger use a script that "everyone" knew at the time was not developed by the 4th Dynasty? Did he have a subconscious need to be caught?


SC: Could Howard-Vyse tell the difference is the question that needs to be asked. Probably not.


Harte: Yes, we both know that there is no such thing as a "clear-cut" history of anything. However, it is certainly clear enough that the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid, and through their own efforts and manpower.


SC: Agreed. It is just the chronology we disagree about and, more importantly, the purpose.


Harte: Many details, on the other hand, are certainly not clear.


SC Agreed.

Regards,

SC

edit on 4/3/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte
 


Hello Harte,


SC: Whilst it may be suggestive, it is far from conclusive. These markings could have been faked by Howard-Vyse—a proven fraudster—when he blasted his way into these hidden chambers in 1837. There is even an eye-witness account of his team painting marks inside the Great Pyramid. And yes—even those markings that are found in the tight gaps between granite blocks where no forger could possibly take a brush could also have been faked and quite easily so. A little lateral thinking goes a long way and makes for a truly convincing result.

Harte: Do you suggest that every hieroglyph in each chamber was forged?


SC: Well according to the testimony of Humphries Brewer (passed down to his great grand father, Walter Allen), some of the painted marks were new whilst some marks were repainted. Only with proper scientific analysis can we hope to determine which is which.

IIRC, Walter Allen is supposed to have told this story to one of his children, who finally wrote it in a letter, and that's the full extent of the evidence for this claim.


Scott Creighton

Harte: If not, then your own pet theory regarding the identity of Khufu is not material to the argument I'm making.


SC: Not quite sure what you mean but if it helps, my view has always been that Surid/Sophis/Khufu built the Great Pyramid.

What I meant is that, even assuming that Vyse forged Khufu's name, which, as I recall, was the basis for your speculation in your thread "Who was Khufu," that wouldn't invalidate the rest of the glyphs found there, and Eghyptian hieroglyphics certainly do not date to 10,00- ybp.


Scott Creighton

Harte: Not, that is, unless somebody wants to argue that Egyptian hieroglyphs were in use 10,000 years ago, and (unless you've changed your mind) …


SC: Well, the ancient Egyptians would probably argue that because they tell us their civilization is tens of thousands of years old. Egyptologists simply dismiss it because the very idea doesn’t fit their own narrative.

No, the narriticve itself is evidence based. There's no evidence for an earlier Egyptian Civilization. The fact that the Egyptians may have made this claim (where - are you reaching to Plato here?) is meaningless. That is, the Egyptians also said that Osiris was murdered, chopped into bits, and his body scattered but later the parts were put back together and his zombified corpse fathered a child with Isis - Horus.
Do you believe everything the Egyptians said?
Alternately, the Egyptians themselves claimed that the Great Pyramid was Khufu's. You are placing Khufu at 10,000 ybp? What about his name in the king's list for the 4th Dynasty?


Scott Creighton

Harte: I know that you won't argue that. Last I recall, you place the Great Pyramid firmly in the Old Kingdom. Has this changed?


SC: My view is stated clearly in my books—the pyramids are much older than 2,500 BCE. Previously I held the view that they were dated to ca. 4,000 BCE but have come across some further evidence at Giza which leads me to the conclusion that they are nearer 19,000 years old. I don’t expect you to accept that dating but that is neither here nor there. The evidence and argument for that date is presented in my forthcoming book, The Secret Chamber of Osiris.

You'll forgive me for not reading it.

How, then, do you explain the hundreds of C14 dates already acquired from the GP? They don't go even nearly that far back.


Scott Creighton

Harte: Please don't ask me to explain Hawass and his contradictory statements.


SC: Fair enough. But this is a man who has probably sent more artefacts to have C14 dated than probably anyone alive today (and probably ever) and he considers C14 dating results to be “imaginary”. In my view Hawass has come to such a conclusion because either a) C14 dating is flawed or b) the orthodox chronology is flawed. I could be wrong but that’s my gut feeling—he’s had too many results back that don’t fit the conventional narrative.

I don't think anything about Hawass and what he says is "either-or." Hawass is Hawass - he was probably p.o.ed that day about something - probably some C14 dates that came back useless through contamination.



Scott Creighton

Harte: I've seen you post a pic from Rosellini's book: link
It's not in my "personal library" here so I can't post the pic - I've linked it. That pic shows the king's list sample of Khufu - with the solar disk glyph.

Now, if you have access, can you post a pic showing that Rosellini actually published Khufu's name - spelled with the hatched circle - in that book? I'm not saying he didn't. I've just never seen it.


SC: Here it is:

Rosellini’s 1832 Book with Khufu Cartouche

Thanks. Now that I see it, I realize I had already seen that sometime in the past. Do you think Vyse was aware of it?


Scott Creighton

Harte: Do you agree that the glyphs - all of them - actually say something? That is, if Vyse didn't know the language, how is it he was able to write quite legibly the names of the work gangs that are recorded there?


SC: Yes—and they say something about KHUFU. That is how Egyptology links the pyramid to this king. As long as Howard-Vyse can recognize the Khufu cartouche, he can copy any piece of text that contains the name Khufu. And often Khufu’s birth name will be placed alongside his Horus name in texts so it is not unsurprising to find the Horus name in these chambers either.

And the names of the work gangs? What, were these phrases laying around somewhere on some relic for Vyse to copy from?


Scott Creighton

Harte: Aren't you aware that such markings have been found in other Egyptian pyramids, always in hard to get at places? Who forged those?


SC: I think you’re missing the point. It is not impossible to fake inscriptions in these hard-to-get-at places. It can be done. The question is whether or not it WAS done and WHAT was done (i.e. which are genuine and which are fake, if any)? I am simply saying we need to be doing more scientific analysis.

So, how can you explain the fact that Samuel Birch - the leading Eghyptologist at the time, didn't recognize some of the glyphs? Where did Vyse get these?


... the Cartouche of Suphis is followed by a hieroglyphic to which it would be difficult to find a parallel. The symbol also which appears in Wellington's Chamber, Plate X, and perhaps the 4th to the left in the west end of the same Chamber preceding the Cartouche (neb Shoufou), are equally difficult of solution (see Plate V.)...

Source - third paragraph from the bottom, second page, Birch-Analysis from Perrings "Pyramids of Gizeh" from 1839.
Wouldn't a Vyse forgery therefore indicate that Vyse, who couldn't read hieroglyphics, would need to know more about hieroglyphics than Samuel Birch - an authority on the subject - in order for him to forge legitimate hieroglyphs that Birch couldn't identify?
Also, some of the glyphs are upside-down in the chambers. This is (of course) because they were written on the stones in the quarry (indications like numbered blocks, conditions like "fine" for the stone, etc.) What would compel a forger to write upside down words he didn't even know the meanings of?


Harte: Lastly, what about the fact that Vyse found hieratic script instead of the more formal glyphs? Will you claim that, at the time, Egyptology was already aware that hieratic was in use in the 4th Dynasty? That is, if they were unaware (and some of the main objections at the time regarding Vyse's find were based on the "knowledge" that heiratic hadn't been developed in the 4th Dynasty,) why on Earth would a forger use a script that "everyone" knew at the time was not developed by the 4th Dynasty? Did he have a subconscious need to be caught?


SC: Could Howard-Vyse tell the difference is the question that needs to be asked. Probably not.
If he couldn't, and he was copying from Materia Hieroglyphica, then how did he even get hold of the hieratic version?

Harte



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

mblahnikluver

mstower

mblahnikluver
***For those arguing they didn't have permission or a permit, yes they did. Go to about 10:30 mins into the first video and Bauval shows the permit these two had to enter the pyramid.
edit on 3/2/2014 by mblahnikluver because: add last part about permit.


Did they have permission to attack the inscriptions with a chisel?

If not, I fail to see the relevance of the point.

M.


They didn't attack anything with a chisel. They took a small sample of the red paint that was there. They didn't chisel anything. The part they are being accused of ruining was ALREADY ruined when they got there.

I have been following this since it started on FB back in December via Robert Bauval's FB posts and one of the scientists being accused. I have both of them on my FB and both have posted a lot of information about what is going on. If you cared to read any links or posts I have made in this thread you could see for yourself.


Since it started, on Facebook, in December? O wow.

I’ve been following this story since 7 October:

http: //www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?6,580469

You’ll pardon me if I’m not impressed by the length or depth of your acquaintance with it.

I have the footage of what Görlitz did. Do you? I saved all of this stuff, before it was taken down.

Did you?

Görlitz took a chisel to the inscription. My description is precisely correct. Yours is misinformation

“The part they are being accused of ruining was ALREADY ruined when they got there.” Are you a good judge of this? Is Dominique Görlitz? Is Robert Bauval? Have you suddenly gained between you expertise in the epigraphy and palaeography of ancient Egyptian scripts? You needn’t reply: the question is merely rhetorical, as your comment gave the answer in the first place.

Stop imagining that credulity towards the bizarre apologetics of Robert Bauval grants you superior wisdom on the topic.

M.
edit on 4-3-2014 by mstower because: Misparsed URL, changed to text only.

edit on 4-3-2014 by mstower because: The board being hell-bent on messing up the URL, I try again.

edit on 4-3-2014 by mstower because: Style and precision of expression.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

mblahnikluver
The cartouche was already damaged prior to them ever being there.


Actually, no, the cartouche was not already damaged prior to Stefan Erdmann’s activities at Giza.

Just because Robert Bauval has decided for his own reasons to exonerate Erdmann, doesn’t make it so.

M.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


You refer to the "Humphreys Brewer" letter as both an "eyewitness account" and as "testimony." (Brewer, for those just tuning in, was a mason and a member of Vyse's team - allegedly - as no records of such a person exist.) The letter neither qualifies as an 'eyewitness account', and it absolutely is not 'testimony.'

As pointed out in the links I've posted earlier, the letter was written in 1954 (or so it's claimed), long after this Brewer was dead. The letter was written by a great-grandson of Brewer, Walter Allen. He wrote the page based on his recollection of a conversation that took place between his mother and another woman, with his mother recalling it from her father, Wm. Marchant Brewer. This letter doesn't even qualify as "second-hand", it's a third-hand hearsay account of Brewer's exploits.

There's no mention of any Brewer in Vyse's journal - odd, given that Vyse had apparently become so annoyed by this Brewer he banished him from Egypt. The letter purports to contain a timeline of Brewer's travels, after being ejected from Giza by Vyse over this alleged dispute in 1837, it (the letter) states he immediately returns home, but then we see a travel itinerary that takes him all over the Middle East and Europe before returning home.

There is another allegation made by Sitchin, the source for all these "Humphreys Brewer" claims, published by Sitchin in "Journeys to the Mythical Past" - that W. Allen produced additional pages claiming that Brewer had also met with Karl Richard Lepsius, when Lepsius, and I quote: "invited Humphreys to join him when he wanted to examine the 'marks' inside the pyramid - but both were refused permission by Vyse." (that's written in the Allen letter).

Lepsius first arrived in Egypt in 1842. Not only was this long after Brewer had allegedly left Egypt (in 1837), but Vyse was also long gone from Egypt (Vyse was in England in 1842). The dates clearly don't correlate. There is also no mention of a "Humphreys Brewer" in Lepsius' journals either.

That's two recognized and pioneering archeologists in Egypt that failed to make any mention of a "Humphreys Brewer" in their journals, one of them so angered by him that he banished him from Egypt, and the other who so highly prized his opinion that he invited him to review the inscriptions in the relieving chambers with him - yet neither ever mentioned a "Brewer" in their journals.

Oh, and neither Sitchin nor Walter Allen could ever actually produce any of these documents Allen supposedly had.

Someone took the time to analyze Sitchin's claims, blow by blow, here:
"Revelation of the Pyramids": Sitchin, or not Sitchin ?

The whole Walter Allen affair just doesn't add up. It offers nothing in the way of proof of a forgery. The only other thing you offer in your post is a character assassination of Howard-Vyse.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Ancient Egypt appears to have begun at its high point and then descended, very unlike other civilizations. The Pyramids appear to be older than all other Egyptian buildings. That points to there having been a prior advanced civilization.

(That was the politically correct way of saying "a pre-flood Atlanean civilization").



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   
yeah except we have the history of the men who made them and we know the architectural/engineering evolution of the pyramids in egypt including early zigarruts, and a couple of failed attempts at pyramids such as the bent pyramid followed by successful pyramids. we have excavated the support camps of the workers. we even know the knucklehead who succeeded in making the first one for his pharaoh; a dude by the name imhotep made famous as a bad guy in early b grade mummy movies but really a renaissance guy to rival leonardo da vinci.



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join