Crime In The Great Pyramid: The Evidence Mounts

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I have never felt it was Khufu's.

I mean the Egyptians put their images and writing on everything yet the biggest structure there has nothing? It wasn't a tomb imo. It's a power source and i'm sticking with that til the day I die.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Even in Stargate Daniel Jackson said Vyse's find was a fraud. Looks like the fictional was correct twice.

originally posted by: eManym
It has been postulated that Vyse had the markings made to justify the funds he received for his trips to Giza to make discoveries. The fact that the markings were his only discovery indicates it is a fraud.

Hi,

It is very clear from his own publications that Vyse was keen to make an important discovery during his explorations at Giza in 1837. However, there is no evidence that he received funds from any agency, private or public, to fund his explorations at Giza. Vyse was a very wealthy man in his own right with links to the British aristocracy and, as far as we know, funded his explorations from his own considerable family wealth.

SC

I'm still not quite sure what would motivate someone to purposely misidentify the builder of the pyramid in a time when there were no competing theories floating around about a pre-10,000-year-old construction date. And if you were going to do it, why Khufu?

Also, as far as the numbers being flipped around, I can easily imagine someone marking a stone that later had to be flipped around to better fill one a spot in the pyramid interior. And possibly marked by someone who wasn't exactly a college graduate when it came to reading and writing.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I'm still not quite sure what would motivate someone to purposely misidentify the builder of the pyramid in a time when there were no competing theories floating around about a pre-10,000-year-old construction date. And if you were going to do it, why Khufu?

Why Khufu? Because the cartouche of this particular king had already been identified in 1832 (5 years before Vyse ever ventured to Egypt) as the cartouche of the Great Pyramid builder.

Also, as far as the numbers being flipped around, I can easily imagine someone marking a stone that later had to be flipped around to better fill one a spot in the pyramid interior.

Flip the stone so that the 'U' sign is the right way up (i.e. 'n') and you end up with the hieratic numbers having been written onto the block the wrong way round i.e. the | is read before the n. It doesn't matter how you flip the block--the numbers are written in the wrong order for hieratic numbers which are always written right-to-left with the highest value being written first. As the article says.

And possibly marked by someone who wasn't exactly a college graduate when it came to reading and writing.

Certainly I can agree that these hieratic numbers appear to have been written by someone who had little idea of what they were doing; someone who did not understand the difference between hieroglyphic writing and hieratic writing.

SC

The cartouches that Vyse purportedly found contained the same spelling errors from a well known book on hieroglyphics that Vyse was known to have had with him during his discoveries.

This is the best indicator of fraud concerning Vyse's discoveries.

Beneath the Pyramids of Giza “Campbell’s Tomb”

a reply to: dragonridr

I have read a bit about the pyramids , but have never heard it mentioned that anyone has found anything that links the great pyramid to the Egyptians, no construction drawings etc, got any links to those documents you mentioned ?

See post below

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Scott Creighton

And if the grain is lying horizontal in the chambers (as Romer's observation would suggest) then we are seeing how those blocks would have stood in the quarry. So why would the work gangs write their gang names upside-down or sideways onto the horizontal block at the quarry when it would surely have been much easier for them to write the name the right way up?

If a cube shaped block is cut from a quarry with 'horizontal grain' as you suggest.

Then 4 of the 6 sides would also have 'horizontal grain.'

The part of the stone that was cut will be gone but the two edges will greatly match for more than just the cut. Any slight change to the way the rock was laid down during the millions of years it probably took to form, will match up to the opposite side of the cut, too.

originally posted by: eManym
The cartouches that Vyse purportedly found contained the same spelling errors from a well known book on hieroglyphics that Vyse was known to have had with him during his discoveries.

This is the best indicator of fraud concerning Vyse's discoveries.

Beneath the Pyramids of Giza “Campbell’s Tomb”

Alas, this is entirely incorrect; a complete fabrication by Zecharia Sitchin which, unfortunately, has propagated itself all over the internet. Vyse certainly had a book with him in 1837 but it contained no cartouche of Khufu.

This is what Vyse published in his 'Operations Carried out At Gizeh in 1837', p.286:



You can see in the image above that there are individual lines within the disk. There's no centre dot as Sitchin claimed.

Certainly if you look at a poorly printed copy of this cartouche (as Sitchin evidently did) then you will likely see just a smudge. And this 'smudge' is what Sitchin based his entire bogus premise upon.

For the avoidance of doubt on this, here is what Vyse drew in his own private field notes while at Giza in 1837:



Notice the three clear lines in the disc within the cartouche above. Notice also Vyse's handwritten comment below the cartouche: "Cartouche in Campbell's Chamber".

Sitchin was tallking nonsense.

SC

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Scott Creighton

And if the grain is lying horizontal in the chambers (as Romer's observation would suggest) then we are seeing how those blocks would have stood in the quarry. So why would the work gangs write their gang names upside-down or sideways onto the horizontal block at the quarry when it would surely have been much easier for them to write the name the right way up?

If a cube shaped block is cut from a quarry with 'horizontal grain' as you suggest.

Then 4 of the 6 sides would also have 'horizontal grain.'

The part of the stone that was cut will be gone but the two edges will greatly match for more than just the cut. Any slight change to the way the rock was laid down during the millions of years it probably took to form, will match up to the opposite side of the cut, too.

If you get your information from conspiracy sites you won't hear about discoveries. Lets face it there's money involved convincing people to buy books. And there are people out there that want to sell a book with some strange theory of prior civilization or aliens.

We have found an entire city that was built in order to build the great pyramid. We have found papyrus detailing how much people were paid,supplies brought to the site. Even telling you how the king ordered these supplies with commissioners he appointed to run different things. Even one i read about was from a man whos job was to oversee the forges and how they constantly have to rework chisels. They found tombs of workers that would proudly tell you what they did on the pyramid and for who.

www.smithsonianmag.com...

PS cairo museum has an entire section on the builders of the great pyramid.

a reply to: Justoneman

Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.

As i see it.

A block with paint on 1 face/side. Would be able to be laid in 9 different ways. Without the painted face being seen. And. The grain would still run the same way too.

Facing. 3 x right way. 3 x backwards. 3 x upside down.

Have i got the wrong end of the stick?

I can only imagine SC didn't reply to me because he didn't understand my point.

I realize Sitchin was a charlatan but don't consider everything he wrote to be false. He did surmise that there were discrepancies in what was supposedly found by Vyse. The books Sitchin cited as being used by Vyse were, Wilkinson's Materia Hieroglyphica and e Laborde's Voyage.

Other researchers have pointed out from studying Vyse's journals that the discs in the cartouches he drew in his journal over time, originally had blank discs that where later edited as Vyse's discoveries led him to the correct representation.

This is evident in the 'X' marks on the cartouches as marking them incorrect. There are two cartouches in his journal that have blank discs and one, which has the lines. Also, there are references on the same page to the discs with three lines.

In the pyramid, the lines were later added by him after others in his group placed the incorrect cartouches. Also the orientation and size of the cartouches were inconsistent with discoveries by others.

a reply to: dragonridr

having read the article , similar to one I have read before , it only mentions the movement of stones up and down the nile by traders etc!

WHat I am talking about are detailed architectural drawings of the construction , anyone taking on such a huge building project would need drawings for load bearing structures , designs copied and handed to foremen so they'd know where to direct the blocks being placed every 20 minutes!

you know the stuff that huge construction projects require to work as planned , you know plans!

there arent any , and the egyptians recorded everything , they were smart enough to record something as amazing as brain surgery but not how they built the pyramids , no architectural drawings, no measurements, etc !

Just some papyri that describe one man who claims to have worked on the pyramids and has records of purchasing stones, which still cant be linked to the pyramids , he just moved them up and down the nile .

But oh the egyptians being masters of the canal building , supposedly built canals to take the stones the 7 miles from the Nile to Giza , but again no evidence, no detailed construction drawings .

Once more I am met with a claim , about a guy who moved stones , said he worked on the great pyramid !

WHo wouldnt say they worked on it if they were to write a papyrus and say "I worked on it"! later its found and he is credited with working on a wonder of the world!

I dont buy it

seems like the egyptians wanted to claim they made it for the fame.
but they didnt make it

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Justoneman

I can only imagine SC didn't reply to me because he didn't understand my point.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

We are dealing here with the blocks within the various chambers whereby we can observe the painted marks. All of these marked blocks face into the chambers although there are some mason's marks (no cartouches) in tight gaps between some of the blocks i.e. on sides of the blocks. The marks on the blocks are mostly upside-down, a few sideways and one or two with upright markings.

It is unlikely that ancient Egyptian scribes would write marks upside-down or even sideways when it is much easier to write (and read) text the right way up. So how do we explain the jumbled assortment of orientations of hieratic script we find within these chambers? The orthodox explanation is that the scribe originally would have written the script the right way up (the most natural and obvious way to write) and that the text only became upside-down, sideways etc when the block was rotated by the builders when placing the various blocks into the walls and roof of these chambers.

But there is an abundance of evidence that shows that the hieratic text we find on the blocks in these chambers were, in fact, painted onto the blocks in-situ. Now, given that it is unlikely in the extreme that an AE scribe would paint marks upside-down or sideways onto an in-situ block, then the only reasonable way of explaining these marks is that they were faked by Vyse & Co. There is also much evidence elsewhere outwith the chambers to show that the marks were faked by him.

I hope that clarifies my position for you.

SC

sorry again to derail , but what is this large rectangle structure , to the west of the Unas Complex

29°52'02.1"N 31°12'22.1"E

originally posted by: eManym
I realize Sitchin was a charlatan but don't consider everything he wrote to be false. He did surmise that there were discrepancies in what was supposedly found by Vyse. The books Sitchin sited as being used by Vyse were, Wilkinson's Materia Hieroglyphica and e Laborde's Voyage.

Other researchers have pointed out from studying Vyse's journals that the discs in the cartouches he drew in his journal over time, originally had blank discs that where later edited as Vyse's discoveries led him to the correct representation.

This is evident in the 'X' marks on the cartouches as marking them incorrect. There are two cartouches in his journal that have blank discs and one, which has the lines. Also, there are references on the same page to the discs with three lines.

In the pyramid, the lines were later added by him after others in his group placed the incorrect cartouches. Also the orientation and size of the cartouches were inconsistent with discoveries by others.

Other researchers - yes, me. All first published in my last 2 books.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

The marks on the blocks are mostly upside-down, a few sideways and one or two with upright markings.

I don't see any mystery.

Not saying Vyse and gang are innocent.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Scott Creighton

The marks on the blocks are mostly upside-down, a few sideways and one or two with upright markings.

I don't see any mystery.

It's certainly not a 'mystery' - it's easily explainable by one of two scenarios.

1) Marks were painted onto blocks right way up at the quarry (or shortly thereafter but before placement) then rotated at pyramid (orthodox opinion).

2) They were painted in-situ (upside-down, sideways etc), thus fake (my opinion).

Point is - even the orthodox proponents feel compelled to explain the jumbled orientations of these painted marks we find in these chambers because even they recognise that most people would paint their name the right way up on a block of stone.

So, if they have been painted in-situ, as an abundance of evidence demonstrates, why would they be painted upside-down? To give the impression, to create an illusion that they were painted at the quarry, before placement - ergo that they must be genuine. But it's only an illusion as the plethora of evidence I have uncovered over the past 6 years or so demonstrates.

SC