A question on the Jan 2015 book and whether it covers the seven other cartouches?

originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: Harte
... I would add a fourth and fifth possibility based on my brief exchanges over the past day:

4) Scott refuses to engage further into a juvenile exchange with Hanslune

5) Scott prefers to not reveal material from his most unfinished book prematurely (I believe he basically said as much in his reply)

Hello GuyinKY,

You nailed it. While my most recent book, 'The Secret Chamber of Osiris' (Bear & Co., 2014), concentrates on the quarry marks/cartouche in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, my forthcoming book, 'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co., Dec 2016), spends much of the book showing that the Khnum-Khuf cartouches in the lower chambers are most likely 19th century fakes. The evidence comes from many different sources and is highly compelling. That's about all I can say about it for the moment. I trust this answers everyone's questions.

Best,

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: Harte
... I would add a fourth and fifth possibility based on my brief exchanges over the past day:

4) Scott refuses to engage further into a juvenile exchange with Hanslune

5) Scott prefers to not reveal material from his most unfinished book prematurely (I believe he basically said as much in his reply)

Hello GuyinKY,

You nailed it. While my most recent book, 'The Secret Chamber of Osiris' (Bear & Co., 2014), concentrates on the quarry marks/cartouche in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, my forthcoming book, 'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co., Dec 2016), spends much of the book showing that the Khnum-Khuf cartouches in the lower chambers are most likely 19th century fakes. The evidence comes from many different sources and is highly compelling. That's about all I can say about it for the moment. I trust this answers everyone's questions.

Best,

SC

A simple "no" would have given the exact same answer.

However, I seem to recall that there was some buzz over at Hancock's website about how you were finally going to come out with this info in the 2015 book Hans was referring to. I also seem to recall seeing you posting in the middle of that buzz.

In fact, it seems you left several of the posters there under the assumption that this would be that book.

Therefore, the question was legitimate and innocent, exactly as I said it was.

Thanks for answering it, nine months later and after your book came out.

Now it only looks like you were trying to sell the book and didn't want to let on that what folks thought it was was not what it was.

Still, beats the idea that you didn't know about the other cartouches, at least.

Harte

a reply to: Scott Creighton

from the OP:

...The Evidence' (...), spends much of the book showing that the Khnum-Khuf cartouches in the lower chambers are most likely 19th century fakes....

Academics aside is it not fairly simple to date a stone carving/relief within a time frame of ----say 3,500 years as being a recent 'Kilroy was here' addition ?

if not then the whole Antiquities of Egypt army of scholars are not much more than charlatans out for the money in beguiling others

a reply to: St Udio

Hi St. Udio,

St. Udio: Academics aside is it not fairly simple to date a stone carving/relief within a time frame of ----say 3,500 years as being a recent 'Kilroy was here' addition ?

The cartouches (and other markings) in these chambers are painted onto the stone blocks with red ochre paint. There has never (as far as we know) been any attempt by the Egyptian antiquities authority to have the paint scientifically examined/analysed.


There was, however, one Arabic report by Dina Abdel-Alim of 'Day 7 Magazine', (The Cheops Lie) which claimed the paint fragments taken in 2012 by Erdmann and Gorlitz from Campbell's Chamber had been tested in a German radiocarbon dating laboratory (SGS) and that the paint was found to be only "centuries" old. You can read the article here (4th paragraph). Google translate gives this:

"...they have analyzed samples of the cartouche of Khufu and reached the result, which is that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid and that the ink [paint] used in the cartridges [cartouches] to jot down details constructed the pyramid is not old, but the age of the pyramid itself is larger than life, cartouche centuries, which confirms that the pyramid is not due to Khufu ..." (My emphasis).

I contacted SGS to try and have this account confirmed but they would not confirm or deny anything.

Regards,

SC

A minimum of 20 mg of organic material is required by most labs.

Please note that this doesn't mean 20 mg of ocher paint (which is not organic.)

It could be that the paint is oil-based, likely plant oil or animal fat if that's true, which would give a decent reading. It's just as likely that it's water based though, which would provide no information at all.

But imagine how much paint would have to be sampled.

Also consider that the paint itself has been sitting on and soaking into stone that contains a very large amount of carbon itself, which could easily skew the results.

Also, it would be preferable to get a sample from a site where hundreds or thousands of people with torches and lamps and candles have not come in and deposited new carbon on all the walls.

Unless a lab customer explicitly directs otherwise, no lab is going to give out results to anyone but the customer.

Hence, you have to believe the crooks that stole the paint samples.

Harte

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Hello GuyinKY,

You nailed it. While my most recent book, 'The Secret Chamber of Osiris' (Bear & Co., 2014), concentrates on the quarry marks/cartouche in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, my forthcoming book, 'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co., Dec 2016), spends much of the book showing that the Khnum-Khuf cartouches in the lower chambers are most likely 19th century fakes. The evidence comes from many different sources and is highly compelling. That's about all I can say about it for the moment. I trust this answers everyone's questions.

Best,

SC

Huff, puff!

That you’d end up a proselyte of Sitchin’s forgery claim was evident when you started your BS several years ago.

Making it your sole stock-in-trade is liable to bore even the most fawning of your dupes.

Now we know what’s been on your agenda: monomaniacally rationalising the forgery claim for the remainder of the inscriptions.

Who would have predicted it?

M.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

There was, however, one Arabic report by Dina Abdel-Alim of 'Day 7 Magazine', (The Cheops Lie) which claimed the paint fragments taken in 2012 by Erdmann and Gorlitz from Campbell's Chamber had been tested in a German radiocarbon dating laboratory (SGS) and that the paint was found to be only "centuries" old. You can read the article here (4th paragraph).

. . . and you’ve been pulled up before for citing this silly exercise in Arabic tabloid journalism, complete with rant about Jewish plots — which, by the way, isn’t even at that URL any more. Didn’t you check?

Doubtless this is indicative of the quality we may expect of your forthcoming book (if the last one wasn’t enough).

M.

originally posted by: mstower

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

There was, however, one Arabic report by Dina Abdel-Alim of 'Day 7 Magazine', (The Cheops Lie) which claimed the paint fragments taken in 2012 by Erdmann and Gorlitz from Campbell's Chamber had been tested in a German radiocarbon dating laboratory (SGS) and that the paint was found to be only "centuries" old. You can read the article here (4th paragraph).

. . . and you’ve been pulled up before for citing this silly exercise in Arabic tabloid journalism, complete with rant about Jewish plots — which, by the way, isn’t even at that URL any more. Didn’t you check?

Doubtless this is indicative of the quality we may expect of your forthcoming book (if the last one wasn’t enough).

M.

Here through the best efforts of Google Translate is what Creighton would have us rely on.

M.

originally posted by: mstower

originally posted by: mstower

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

There was, however, one Arabic report by Dina Abdel-Alim of 'Day 7 Magazine', (The Cheops Lie) which claimed the paint fragments taken in 2012 by Erdmann and Gorlitz from Campbell's Chamber had been tested in a German radiocarbon dating laboratory (SGS) and that the paint was found to be only "centuries" old. You can read the article here (4th paragraph).

. . . and you’ve been pulled up before for citing this silly exercise in Arabic tabloid journalism, complete with rant about Jewish plots — which, by the way, isn’t even at that URL any more. Didn’t you check?

Doubtless this is indicative of the quality we may expect of your forthcoming book (if the last one wasn’t enough).

M.

Here through the best efforts of Google Translate is what Creighton would have us rely on.

M.

To those with an inkling of how Google operates, it will come as no surprise that the current translation differs from one obtained several months ago.

We’re looking at the third paragraph.

For the record, the current translation (at time of writing) of the third paragraph is as follows:

These lies that tried German Stefan and his team recognized by boarding the cartouche of Cheops room and the theft of a small-sized sample of the cartouche of King Khufu and travel out to Germany and they analyzed there, and then they announced in Bjahh complete effrontery by video recorder to them that they analyzed samples from a cartouche of Cheops and reached the result is that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid and that the ink used in the cartridges to codify constructed pyramid details is not old, but Pyramid same age greater than the age of cartridges centuries, which confirms that the pyramid is not due to Khufu and Msheedah are ancient Jews because they were living in Egypt construction period Pyramid.

While Google Translate still struggles with the material, it is tolerably clear that what is being reported here is the announcement made by Görlitz and Erdmann. It has no higher authority than that. Less. We would not rely on this as a report of what they said, let alone as a report of the truth of the matter.

Creighton would have us accept his (doubtless impartial) judgement that the evidence to be presented in his next book (it’s always the next book) is “compelling”.

Here we have a concrete basis on which to calibrate his ability to assess evidence.

M.

a reply to: mstower

"That you’d end up a proselyte of Sitchin’s forgery claim was evident when you started your BS several years ago."

SC: Sitchin cetainly made the original claim--we all know that, Stower. But he most certainly didn't produce most of the evidence I will be presenting in my next book. But nice to see you are still here banging the drum for good old Colonel Vyse and his *ahem* 'discovery''; a 'discovery' presented to the world by a known fraudster and cheat and a discovery that has been accepted without any official modern scientific analysis of the paint in those chambers having ever been done.

That level of authentication is for the simple-minded and you are welcome to it. Most of the rest of us require a bit more hard evidence before coming to a conclusion on something. But hey-ho... whatever floats your boat.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: mstower

"That you’d end up a proselyte of Sitchin’s forgery claim was evident when you started your BS several years ago."

SC: Sitchin cetainly made the original claim--we all know that, Stower. But he most certainly didn't produce most of the evidence I will be presenting in my next book. But nice to see you are still here banging the drum for good old Colonel Vyse and his *ahem* 'discovery''; a 'discovery' presented to the world by a known fraudster and cheat and a discovery that has been accepted without any official modern scientific analysis of the paint in those chambers having ever been done.

SC

I wonder what a good descriptor is for someone who claims to be an "Engineer" on their book blurb but actually runs an internet cafe?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

"I wonder what a good descriptor is for someone who claims to be an "Engineer" on their book blurb but actually runs an internet cafe?"

SC: Why do you wonder about the fact that, as well as researching and writing books, I also own and operate a number of Internet Cafes across the UK? Is there some law/rule that states business people are not allowed to write books on ancient history? If so, do refer them to me.

I am very fortunate that I operate a highly successful UK business that allows me the financial freedom to pursue my real passion--which is researching and writing about ancient Egypt. You seem to have a problem with that--why? Do you also have a problem that Einstein states "Patents Clerk" on his CV?

"Claims to be a "Engineer"..."

SC: Not that it is any business of yours but yes, I am an 'Engineer' -- an ICT Network Engineer and have been for decades as well as being the IT Manager for a number of UK global companies and, as a result of that career, was able to travel all over the world (at my former companies' expense) and, in my spare time, was able to visit and research many of the world's most sacred sites. Are you calling me a liar? What evidence do you have that I am not an ICT Network Engineer? Suggest you tread very carefully.

SC

I will tread as carefully as you, Scott.

Anyone that allows the term "engineer" on their book blurb should be clear that the "engineering" they do has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything in their book.

Why is the term used to describe you, Scott? Are you going to state that it's not an attempt to make it appear that you know what you're talking about when it comes to ancient engineering?

How many networks did the AE's operate, Scott?

Describing you as an "engineer" on your book/bio seems to me to be fraudulent and cheating.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Describing you as an "engineer" on your book/bio seems to me to be fraudulent and cheating.

SC: No, it is not "fraudulent" or "cheating" because it is what I actually do for a living. If my book bio had said I was an historian, an archaeologist or a badge carrying Egyptologist (you know, the stuff I actually write about) then that would be fraudulent and cheating because I am none of those things. Do you see the difference? It's really not too difficult.

Now that we've cleared that up I think your best course of action is, instead of digging around looking for non-existant mud to throw about, spend your time more constructively; present actual scientific evidence that the painted marks in these chambers are authentic. There--that should keep you occupied and out of trouble for a while.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: mstower

"That you’d end up a proselyte of Sitchin’s forgery claim was evident when you started your BS several years ago."

SC: Sitchin cetainly made the original claim--we all know that, Stower. But he most certainly didn't produce most of the evidence I will be presenting in my next book. But nice to see you are still here banging the drum for good old Colonel Vyse and his *ahem* 'discovery''; a 'discovery' presented to the world by a known fraudster and cheat and a discovery that has been accepted without any official modern scientific analysis of the paint in those chambers having ever been done.

That level of authentication is for the simple-minded and you are welcome to it. Most of the rest of us require a bit more hard evidence before coming to a conclusion on something. But hey-ho... whatever floats your boat.

SC

As noted here already, Creighton:

[grahamhancock.com]

Only the hard of honesty would persist in this “known fraudster and cheat” BS (as detailed passim).

Also noted passim, here and elsewhere, by those who understand the science, is the character (also BS) of your ritual invocation of “offcial modern scientific analysis”. This from someone who cites as “evidence” on the question a silly “Jewish Conspiracy” story in an online Arabic tabloid.

You think you’re special, Creighton. You’re not. You’re just like everyone else who’s recycled Sitchin’s convenient forgery fantasia, to rationalise some halfbaked (but hoped-to-be-saleable) “theory of the pyramids”.

You’d have us believe that Sitchin reached the right conclusions for the wrong reasons. Remarkable coincidence! You’d have us believe that you’ve been chivvied into the pen of the forgery theory by the sheepdogs of the evidence, without reference to Sitchin’s conclusions as a desired outcome. Yeah, right.

You seem to forget that we’ve seen your huffing and puffing about the evidence to be presented in your “next book” before.

M.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Harte

"I wonder what a good descriptor is for someone who claims to be an "Engineer" on their book blurb but actually runs an internet cafe?"

SC: Why do you wonder about the fact that, as well as researching and writing books, I also own and operate a number of Internet Cafes across the UK? Is there some law/rule that states business people are not allowed to write books on ancient history? If so, do refer them to me.

I am very fortunate that I operate a highly successful UK business that allows me the financial freedom to pursue my real passion--which is researching and writing about ancient Egypt. You seem to have a problem with that--why? Do you also have a problem that Einstein states "Patents Clerk" on his CV?

"Claims to be a "Engineer"..."

SC: Not that it is any business of yours but yes, I am an 'Engineer' -- an ICT Network Engineer and have been for decades as well as being the IT Manager for a number of UK global companies and, as a result of that career, was able to travel all over the world (at my former companies' expense) and, in my spare time, was able to visit and research many of the world's most sacred sites. Are you calling me a liar? What evidence do you have that I am not an ICT Network Engineer? Suggest you tread very carefully.

SC

So, not a civil engineer. then. Thanks for confirming. I wonder why you found it so hard to say this, last time you were asked.

Personally, having put in the odd router and switch myself, I’ve always considered “network engineer” to be BS. My father was a real engineer, so I have some standards in these matters.

M.

originally posted by: mstower

So, not a civil engineer. then. Thanks for confirming. I wonder why you found it so hard to say this, last time you were asked.

Personally, having put in the odd router and switch myself, I’ve always considered “network engineer” to be BS. My father was a real engineer, so I have some standards in these matters.

M.

I worked as a mechanical and environmental engineer for twenty years myself.

The work I did to get there, and the things I did in my jobs, make me a little touchy on the subject as well.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Harte: The work I did to get there, and the things I did in my jobs, make me a little touchy on the subject as well.

SC: Likewise - although I am not particularly "touchy" about it. Being an engineer (and I think this is probably true of most engineers in whatever field) is that I generally think in a highly logical, practical and analytical fashion and all geared towards the desire to problem solve. And, for those who have read my books and/or posts concerning ancient Egypt, they will see that that is the approach I often take--I work logically and analytically towards solving a particular problem. Some might not agree with my analysis or conclusion but that is to be expected--especially in a field as contentious as AE history.

I personally think that such a 'mindset' helps in exploring our ancient past but I recognise also that it is not absolutely essential. Graham Hancock, for example, is a journalist by trade and a sociologist which just goes to show that you do not need to be an engineer, Egyptologist, archaeologist or historian to raise legitimate questions about our ancient past. Those who subscribe to the view that only those who carry the appropriate qualification(s) can be permitted to explore and write about our ancient past really need their head examined. If our past tells us anything it is that progress can come from those within a particular profession but also from those totally outside of it.

Now, back to the topic that actually matters here--are you any further forward in providing scientific evidence that proves the paint used for the quarry marks in these chambers of the Great Pyramid is contemporary with the structure? Any time soon would be good. Thanks.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Wow Scott, I'd be flattered. Seems you have a pretty consistent fan base.

On topic: do any of your books actually touch on the viability of such a conspiracy? Meaning how many professionals/archeologists would have had to be in on the forgery in order for it to continue to propagate? There were a few well respected archeologists that gave creditability to these cartouche's at that time and continue to present.

Was there any doubt to Vyse's discovery at that time? Or was Stichin the first to even consider such a conspiracy?

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Wow Scott, I'd be flattered. Seems you have a pretty consistent fan base.

SC: I am not sure that "fan base" is quite the right term here but they are most certainly consistent--in demanding that others provide evidence to back up their views while they seem to think that such is not required of them.

Rosinitiate: On topic: do any of your books actually touch on the viability of such a conspiracy? Meaning how many professionals/archeologists would have had to be in on the forgery in order for it to continue to propagate? There were a few well respected archeologists that gave creditability to these cartouche's at that time and continue to present.

SC: At that time (i.e. 1837 BCE) the interpretation of AE hieroglyphics was very much in its infancy and there were but a handful of experts in the entire world and even those few 'experts' were still very much grappling with and trying to get to grips with the intricacies of the language. There weren't even that many books yet written on the subject at that time. So it is not really a question of a whole bunch of experts all colluding with each other on the 'authenticity' per se but rather agreeing that a particular piece of script should be understood in a particular way. None of these experts had actually been to the chambers themselves and had to rely on J.R. Hill's facsimile drawings of the markings.

So this isn't really the issue. The issue is whether the markings are genuine 4th dynasty markings and not 19th century fabrications. It is clear from his private writings that Colonel Vyse, during his time in Egypt, understood how the Suphis/Khufu cartouche should be written. We do not know where he got his information for this but that he understood the Suphis/Khufu cartouche is perfectly clear from his private writings. It is not beyond the realms of impossibility then that with this knowledge, Colonel Vyse could very well have had the Suphis/Khufu cartouche placed in Campbell's Chamber and the experts back in London would have concurred from Mr Hill's facsimile drawing of it that it was indeed the cartouche of Suphis/Khufu.

That such a possibility even exists is reason enough for us to ask for actual scientific evidence that proves the provenance of these painted marks are contemporaneous with the Great Pyramid itself. This is especially so given Colonel Vyse's less than honorable past, having perpetrated electoral fraud at a UK election.

Rosinitiate: Was there any doubt to Vyse's discovery at that time? Or was Stichin the first to even consider such a conspiracy?

SC: As I said above--there would have been little doubt of the authenticity of the marks because none of the experts at that time knew that Vyse understood the Suphis/Khufu cartouche--but we now know that he did. (Remember also--this was polite early Victorian society in Britain--no one could possibly challenge the word of a British Army Colonel. It just wasn't cricket).

As for Sitchin--as far as I know, he was the first to publicly charge Vyse with perpetrating a fraud although we now know that others had privately done so. Sitchin's evidence, however, was severely lacking and served only to muddy the waters. My own research presents a whole raft of new evidence that prosecutes the case against Vyse much more successfully, imo. Some of this evdence is presented in my last book, 'The Secret Chamber of Osiris' (Bear & Co., Dec 2014) but all of the evidence, including the evidence showing that the markings in all other chambers are likely 19th century fabrications, will be presented in my forthcoming book, 'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co, Dec 2016).

Regards,

SC