The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 3

Hi ATS,

This topic is a continuation of the following:

The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 1

The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 2

The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 3

Consider the images below:









The last image above shows that this cartouche in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid (discovered by Col. Howard Vyse in 1837) has a plethora of random paint dots all over the cartouche, some of the dots even outside the cartouche.

So, here's the question: why would both Vyse and Hill think these were not just random splashes of paint? This is to say, why would they have thought the two spots of paint under the snake glyph (circled red in right-hand image above) were significant but that all the others we see were not? Why do Vyse & Hill single out these two particular splashes of paint as relevant to the cartouche, i.e. to the king's name? Why didn't Vyse and Hill realise that these two splashes of paint under the snake glyph are just as random as all the others? Why draw them and not all the other splashes of paint?

BOTH Vyse and Hill drew this cartouche horizontally when, in actual fact, it is aligned vertically in the chamber. The curious thing is, they both maintained the proper orientation with ALL other drawings they made (that I have been able to check). So why change the orientation of this particular drawing? And why did BOTH men decide only those two dots out of all the randomly splattered spots of paint in this cartocuhe, were signisficant, that it was important to record these two particular dots out of all the others?

These two paint dots are entirely isolated and as random as all the other dots. It simply makes no sense for Hill AND Vyse to both conclude that the same two dots were relevant to the cartouche but that all the others were just random spots of paint. If all the others are just random spots of paint, what is there about these two paint spots that made Vyse and Hill think that these two dots alone were part of the design?

Isn't the simpler answer that this cartouche was actually copied INTO Campbell's Chamber (by Hill) based upon an original 'master' that had been found elsewhere (with two markings under the snake glyph)? And because this 'master' had only two dots (under the snake glyph) then Vyse and Hill assumed these were part of the king's name and had them copied into the cartouche of Campbell's Chamber?

However, as the weeks went by and having been exposed to further examples of the Khufu cartouche (from the Tomb of the Trades), Vyse realised that the two dots are not, in fact, part of the king's name. Since he had already had them copied into Campbell's Chamber, what could he do?

He had a number of options--he could remove the two dots by chipping them away or he could 'mask' the mistake by placing additional random paint spots inside (and outside) the cartouche. It seems he opted to add further random spots of paint. Of course, another possibility is that these random paint splashes (with the exception of the two drawn by Vyse & Hill) were already on the block before they copied the cartouche onto the gabled limestone trussing of Campbell's Chamber.

Food for thought.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I kinda got lost in all the copies. Who copied from who ?

does any of these pics show the original cartouche ?

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Scott Creighton

I kinda got lost in all the copies. Who copied from who ?

does any of these pics show the original cartouche ?

Hi Mario,

Each of the various images has a caption underneath stating where the image is from. The very last image (with all the splashes of paint) is the actual cartouche we see on the lower gabled roof trussing of Campbell's Chamber today (rotated 90 degrees).

Regards,

SC

This little cartouche is so hotly debated.
I read your last installments on the GP and I for one
am quite impressed. I hope you do forensics or something
along those lines, because you are thorough and have
fantastic intuition. IMHO

People freak out on this subject ,
as if the foundation for every belief they have is shattered
by the Great Pyramid being older than the standard 4500 years.
These details that you find are so dangerous to some.
I wonder why?
It's old folks and probably much older than
what 19th century scientists would have believed.

How many other areas of modern scientific study have blasted what was
considered concrete in 18th and 19th century studies ?
120 years ago meteorites didn't exist but lightening striking
the ground and thereby heaving rocks into the air did.

Why is the GP such a sacred cow ?
Like many ideas that get too close to a truth, it makes me wonder
why the group at Antiquities protest WAY too much.

So what HOAX is this purporting to be?
What are we / me looking at ?
What is the Hoax??

originally posted by: DogMeat
So what HOAX is this purporting to be?
What are we / me looking at ?
What is the Hoax??

I was going to ask the same thing... I just opened up this forum, not seeing your part 1 &2 previously, I gave them a quick link. On part 1 I can't access the documents(on office computer sorry) and part 2 I couldn't grasp the point any better.

Please explain what exactly is the "Hoax"?

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

originally posted by: DogMeat
So what HOAX is this purporting to be?
What are we / me looking at ?
What is the Hoax??

I was going to ask the same thing... I just opened up this forum, not seeing your part 1 &2 previously, I gave them a quick link. On part 1 I can't access the documents(on office computer sorry) and part 2 I couldn't grasp the point any better.

Please explain what exactly is the "Hoax"?

SC: Parts 1 & 2 explain this better. Part 3 merely presents further evidence of the hoax. Let me explain briefly.

In 1837, British antiquarian, Col. Richard W. Howard Vyse allegedly discovered the name 'Khufu' within a secret chamber of the Great Pyramid (GP). Vyse found a number of secret chambers that had been sealed since the time of the pyramid's construction. Oddly, though, Nathaniel Davison found the first of these hidden chambers within the GP some years earlier but found not a single hieroglyph within it. Indeed, of all the early, giant pyramids built in ancient Egypt, not a single one was found to have any writing or paintings inside whatsoever. That is what makes the GP unique and why this cartouche of Khufu so important to Egyptology. This cartouche is the only piece of empirical, hard evidence that Egyptology has to link the Great Pyramid to Khufu, the 4th dynasty king they believe built the GP.

If it can be shown that this cartouche is actually a 19th century hoax perpetrated by Col. Vyse (and his assistants) then it removes the only piece of hard evidence Egyptology has to claim the GP was built by Khufu. The research I have undertaken over the past 18 months or so casts serious doubts over the authenticity of this cartouche that Vyse claimed to have discovered and, by extension, that the GP was built by Khufu as Egyptologists claim.

Regards,


SC

The people looking at these things were interpreting what they saw based on the knowledge they held. This is because they were taught this way by others. In reality our perception of things is influenced by what we have been taught and consensus of the time is formed.

A lot of what is known is real but a lot is formed by teachings created by false ideas of the past, and this still is evident today. If you try to find evidence to reinforce your beliefs you will find it but that is because you designed the evidence to substantiate your beliefs a lot of times. Reality is formed by belief.

Weather reality is real or not is immaterial. If you find something that isn't true and it goes against the consensus of the time you are required to supply evidence to prove it. Sometimes the evidence isn't the real evidence needed to prove it though and this means someone can discount it. Then it ruins your reputation. This doesn't mean that what you were trying to show wasn't correct, just that the evidence you gave was not the real reason that proves your reasoning. This also sets into effect ad hominum denial of future evidence. This isn't actually right though.

Our whole system is flawed, full of past evidence used to discount real things even now. Evidence that is not reevaluated to see if it is real. It is accepted even though it never was properly proven to be real initially. Archeology is getting better but still has some problems. All of the sciences have this same problem. Hopefully we can work this out so our intelligence levels improve.

So don't let this obsess you OP. What you are saying may be true but it can become an obsession. If enough people challenge something, it may get re-investigated by those who have the ability. If the newly created consensus of the time shifts the focus. It is good to challenge this consensus because lots of times it is wrong.

S&F for opening people's minds to see other possibilities.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Thank you so much for that brief explanation. I've longed believed the Egyptians had nothing to do with the Great Pyramid or the Sphinx. I look forward to reading more on it when I get on my personal computer.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

well...than...it appears to my untrained eye...that those two spots were unreasonably singled out as significant...among many other on that cartouche.

Maybe I missed it from your OP...but what exactly those two spots are supposed to represent ?

What are your thoughts on the red "dots"...random splashes or significant somehow ?

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Hello Scott

One thing that interests me is the artifacts that were found in the Pyramid the ball and the hook device which has been described as a tool for opening the mouth and the wooden handle of it ?

I had long thought this lost ? but saw photographs of it on this site have you any further information on this for me Mr Creighton

You should expect someone to say that the random spots are a star map! lol's

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I didn't read all your threads on the subject but I do understand your point none the less. The question I have is, if by chance you happen to know if Vyse and/or Hill were freemasons.

My question seems at first to be off topic but in order to confuse the masses and keeping priceless information a secret I can imagine that "the brotherhood" would write such a cartouche.

Anyways, were there not some germans lately taking a few milligrams of sample material from the cartouche for dating it in a lab?

Thnks, always good stuff... S&F

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Scott Creighton

well...than...it appears to my untrained eye...that those two spots were unreasonably singled out as significant...among many other on that cartouche.

Maybe I missed it from your OP...but what exactly those two spots are supposed to represent ?

What are your thoughts on the red "dots"...random splashes or significant somehow ?

SC: In terms of reading the Khufu cartouche the two dots under the name have no relevance whatsoever--they are not part of the king's name but rather are accidental markings under the snake glyph. In 1837 the reading of hieroglyphs was very much in its infancy. We know from Vyse's private handwritten journal of his time at Giza that he knew (or believed he knew) how the Khufu cartouche should generally be written. Vyse does not tell us the source of his knowledge.

But it seems to me that Vyse found a 'master' Khufu cartouche (with associated crew name) somewhere outside the Great Pyramid. This 'master' Khufu cartouche probably had two (accidental) markings under the snake glyph hence why Vyse copied this cartouche (including the two irrelevant accidental markings under the snake glyph) into Campbell's Chamber of the GP, into his private diary (three times) and why Mr Hill copied the same irrelevant markings onto his facsimile drawing of the cartouche (now in the British Museum).

Had Vyse and Hill originally copied the cartouche FROM Campbell's Chamber then I simply cannot see why they would BOTH have thought those two particular markings under the snake glyph were of any more importance than any of the other dots. Them copying just these two particular dots only makes sense if they had actually found a cartouche elsewhere that showed ONLY these two markings under the snake glyph. It is easy to understand why both Vyse and Hill, in such a circumstance, would have thought the two dots under the snake glyph were actually relevant (and not just an irrelevant accidental error) to the spelling of the King's name. This is why the selecting and drawing of these two random dots is so odd and why it suggests a different 'master' source for the Khufu cartouche we find in Campbell's Chamber of the GP today. Vyse and Hill simply didn't know enough about hieroglyphs to know that the two dots on their 'master' were actually meaningless and so faithfully copied them thinking they were relevant. This Khufu cartouche and its crew name (and quite possibly many other markings Vyse claimed to have found in these chambers) are, imo, a fake; a quite audacious hoax perpetrated by Vyse and his assistants in 1837.

I hope that better explains things.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Thanks for the pics

I read about this in Graham Hankocks Fingerprints of the gods, so its nice to see the pics. I entirely agree with what your saying, its the only way to make sense of it.
I'm not sure why, and I dont think its just about reputations, but it seems there are people who dont want us to know the truth about the GP.

Better views that are less distorted:





From even a slightly further viewing point the two dots become much more apparent.

Again, these are mason marks, made in the quarries, they're not precisely made formal scripts.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Better views that are less distorted:

From even a slightly further viewing point the two dots become much more apparent.

Again, these are mason marks, made in the quarries, they're not precisely made formal scripts.

SC: Better views? Questionable. We know they are not "precisely made formal scripts". That's not the point. The point is WHEN were they made? And even in your own, less close-up, images you can STILL see many of the other random paint spots in and around the cartouche. Vyse tells us in his journal that Campbell's Chamber was "minutely examined" for hieroglyph markings. As such it is difficult to accept that he could not have seen all the other random paint splashes in and around that cartouche.

So what was it that made Vyse AND Hill (BOTH of them) think those two particular random paint spots in and around the Khufu cartouche, out of the many random paint spots they would surely have seen up close, were relevant and should be copied? If these men saw a number of other paint spots in and around the cartouche then surely at least one of them would have concluded that these two markings (below the snake glyph) were ALSO just random paint drops like all the others and likely not part of the king's name? So why then did Vyse copy them into his journal (three times) and Hill onto his facsimile drawing?

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what is to be gained by making it appear that Khufu built The Great Pyramid if he in fact didn't?

Is it merely that it attributes the building to someone, ANYONE at all, rather than leave it a complete and timeless mystery which would then lead to questions that "they" would rather not have to answer?

OP, thanks not familiar with this and will check out the other parts.


Interesting... While looking into other areas of historical research claimed as proof one can find many claims are connected to not only money, but notoriety that they discovered such a thing.