Crime In The Great Pyramid: The Evidence Mounts

a reply to: blackcrowe

the mystery being that the hieratic script is written incorrectly with the smaller numbers on the right instead of the left on some of the blocks! Also
that the evidence shows the text to be written in-situ by scribes or whoever , but it doesnt make sense as why write quarry marks outside of the quarry ?

The other mystery is , why would the blocks be upside down in the first place , given it would take a lot of time and effort to flip, rotate blocks to fit , when you could just measure and cut them to fit without having to flip , or rotate from the quarry!
therefore quarried blocks which were marked at the quarry would be written correctly and the right way up (by a human who is fluent in hieratic script) , the blocks would have been cut and sent for construction without the need to flip or rotate!
thus saving time, and not having every block having to be figured out before its placed!

They measure , based on plans by architect, masons measure and cut blocks, add quarry marks , to say , this was cut on tuesday in the 10 month on the year of Khufu or whatever!
This block fits in section "kings chamber" next to block B and C.

Yet it appears the blocks all have the grain of the limestone the same way! so they werent flipped or rotated !
and the quarry marks were made later in-situ , which doesnt make any real sense so the conclusion is that they were made by Vyse or his crew

a reply to: sapien82

but it doesnt make sense as why write quarry marks outside of the quarry ?

No. So quarry marks must have been done at the quarry.


'The other mystery is , why would the blocks be upside down in the first place ,'


A block is a block. Why not?


'therefore quarried blocks which were marked at the quarry'

Yes.

'blocks would have been cut and sent for construction without the need to flip or rotate!'

Not necessarily.

They quarry big blocks.


'masons measure and cut blocks'


Correct. They make the big blocks smaller.


'so the conclusion is that they were made by Vyse or his crew'

I have no problem with that comment.

Just saying i don't get the point. When i see it as possible to have been done like that.

But. I did ask earlier if i had the wrong end of the stick.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: sapien82

but it doesnt make sense as why write quarry marks outside of the quarry ?

No. So quarry marks must have been done at the quarry.

That's the orthodox view. It's why the Egyptologists called them 'quarry' marks.

The other mystery is , why would the blocks be upside down in the first place ,


A block is a block. Why not?

Ask yourself - "why are the marks on the blocks in those chambers upside-down?"



SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

OK.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Ask yourself - "why are the marks on the blocks in those chambers upside-down?"

Why not?

a reply to: blackcrowe

the reason they would have unlikley cut , moved , flipped or rotated , is that they weigh up to 100 tonnes !

it's no mean feat!

what Im saying is , that a construction this big , blocks would have been cut specifically for each section
especially the interior load bearing blocks in the central column of the kings chamber up and below it !

so that once they have been cut to size, from the quarry, there is no need to flip or rotate, they just move and place them as is! Having taken away the need for "laymen" to figure out how to place it , they are told by their foreman , who was told by the architect where to place the "specific" sized block !

I mean the precision to which these blocks have been put together would require some form of calculation surely , yet there are no records of such!

If the blocks were flipped or rotated, which I doubt, because of the effort required to do so , then we'd see the grain of the limestone going in alternating directions which may lend to the theory of quarry marks upside, down , but still doesnt account for the hieractic script being written incorrectly the wrong way round !

surely if you are literate to write a number successfully once , then you'd be able to write it correctly every time, yet one set of marks is written incorrectly.

I mean if we are told they laid a block every 20 minutes, does that also include the time it takes for them to figure out which way to lay the block precisely , or do you think they;d just follow a plan an architect had made , which tells them which way to lay every single block!

I dunno , it just seems the more and more we discuss the pyramids it appears the AE didnt make them at all , but just being egotistical self centered rulers, they just decided they'd hoax everyone into believing they made the greatest structures on earth known to man!

a reply to: blackcrowe

Who writes upside down ?

Anyone in the world, ever , find it easier to write upside down than it is to write the right way up ?

It's just stupid to say they writ it upside down just for the # of it !

a reply to: sapien82

Like i said.

I think i got the wrong end of the stick.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: blackcrowe

Who writes upside down ?

Anyone in the world, ever , find it easier to write upside down than it is to write the right way up ?

It's just stupid to say they writ it upside down just for the # of it !

Apparently they were written by someone who doesnt exactly know how to write it properly. Like some guy swinging a hammer at the quarry, a dumb brute.

That makes sense. Like my cousin who's just a little slow, he hasn't quite learned how to write everything properly. So naturally he writes everything rotated exactly 180 degrees upside down and in near perfect English. I tell him, don't ever give up, you keep trying and one day you will be good enough to write right-side-up.

We All remember when we used to write upside down, before we learned properly.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: sapien82

Like i said.

I think i got the wrong end of the stick.

You helped me understand a little better so I'm glad you persisted

a reply to: sapien82

I will say this blocks were stacked in a holding area. The nile would need to be at its maximum height to get them to the pyramid. So when it was rainy season they put all their efforts onto moving these stones to the staging areas. And they would be pulled as needed. Similar to building a house you stack up wood for framing. You dont go to the store to buy each piece. To assume they were not oriented differently then the quarry seems silly when your trying to argue which side was up.

a reply to: dragonridr

If they did build them , then stockpiling near the site would of course be the most efficient way to construct such a large object!

the thing is with the blocks being cut and moved , with a quarry mark , they'd know which way it was meant to go from the plans !(which there are none)
the blocks are unlikley to be flipped , why go to so much effort when you can cut them the right way up to begin with!

Of course , waiting until rain season to ship all these blocks from the Nile 7 miles inland to the Giza plateau must have taken a massive effort , does this time wasted waiting on rainy season included in the 20 minutes block laying and the 20 year construction time ?

Seems a bit daft really , but maybe that is in the calculation and the work was seasonal "zero hours contract" create by the egyptians!

hahahah

a reply to: blackcrowe

I think I misunderstood your misunderstanding lol !

no worries mate , least we got there in the end hahaha

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: sapien82

The nile would need to be at its maximum height to get them to the pyramid.

In terms of the 'Vyse Chambers', only the roof blocks in Campbell's would have been quarried on the opposite side of the Nile at the Tura-Massara quarries. The granite blocks (which have no quarry marks evident) were quarried at Aswan. All other limestone wall blocks in the chambers (from my discussions with various geologists) seem to have been quarried at the local Giza quarries.

To assume they were not oriented differently then the quarry seems silly when your trying to argue which side was up.

The point is that the painted marks, according to mainstream Egyptology, were painted BEFORE the blocks were placed into their final position within the various chambers. Whether this occurred at the quarries, in transit from the quarries or just before it was set in place is immaterial. The marks were, according to mainstream view, painted onto the stones (upright text) at some point BEFORE they were set in place. This is how they explain the jumbled assortment of orientations of the signs on the various chamber blocks. However, there is much evidence to show that this mainstream assumption is wrong and that the painted block marks were painted onto the blocks while in-situ and not before.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Hi Scott, great to see you!

Thanks for sharing your findings!

From what I understand, the interior blocks in the pyramids are not as precision-cut as one would assume. One of the best arguments against an "advanced" civilization building them is that the blocks are not standardized. Most of them are just heaped into the interior of the pyramids to fill up space. Easy to see how they could have been flipped and rolled and turned around.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
From what I understand, the interior blocks in the pyramids are not as precision-cut as one would assume. One of the best arguments against an "advanced" civilization building them is that the blocks are not standardized. Most of them are just heaped into the interior of the pyramids to fill up space. Easy to see how they could have been flipped and rolled and turned around.

This thread is not about "an 'advanced' civilization". It is about the marks on the blocks in these chambers that are visible to us and whether or not they are genuine 4th dynasty markings or an early Victorian forgery.

Why is this important?

Well, because these marks provide the ONLY hard, empirical evidence to directly connect the pharaoh Khufu with the Great Pyramid and thus to a construction date of ca. 2,500 BC - because that is when Khufu is believed to have ruled Egypt.

However, the evidence I have compiled over the last 6 years or so convinces me that the painted marks on the various blocks in these chambers are fake. If that is true then a central pillar of Egyptology crumbles to dust and the question as to who built the Great Pyramid and WHEN becomes open to question.

THAT is the importance of these painted marks and the central question of this thread.

SC

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: blackcrowe

I think I misunderstood your misunderstanding lol !

no worries mate , least we got there in the end hahaha

No worries sapien82.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Wasn’t the so called quarry mark done with red orche paint? If so it would have surely rubbed off in transport, so thus had to be made in situ. It’s would seem the most likely thing to do anyway. But if Vyse forged it wouldn’t he have known better than to do it upside down?

Isn’t the mark located in a relief chamber on one of the purpose cut blocks above the kings chamber? I think it was Robert Schock who said he had been in that chamber and there is no way to fake the cartouche because the space is so tight you can’t physically get to it.

What are your thoughts on that? Im finding it hard to believe one side or the other on this issue as yet it’s very odd either way.

Thanks for a great thread

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Wasn’t the so called quarry mark done with red orche paint?

Yes, red ochre paint. There are dozens of marks, if not hundreds, in these chambers. There are three different names of the king (not just one) painted on blocks within the various chambers. Two of these names are within the distinctive royal cartouches the other (the Horus name) is not. All of the king's names - let me emphasise that - ALL of the king's various names are painted on blocks that are in relatively easily accessible places within each chamber. ALL of them. None are in inaccessible gaps between the blocks.

If so it would have surely rubbed off in transport, so thus had to be made in situ. It’s would seem the most likely thing to do anyway.

Some probably would have been damaged in transit, some probably survived. At least, that's the orthodox view anyway.

But if Vyse forged it wouldn’t he have known better than to do it upside down?

See my previous posts on this. The WHOLE POINT of painting them into the chambers upside-down, sideways etc is to make it SEEM as though the painted marks musta been painted upright elsewhere i.e. BEFORE the blocks were set in place. The WHOLE POINT of Vyse & Co. painting them upside-down, sideways etc on the in-situ blocks is to give the ILLUSION that they must be genuine, that the block marks musta been painted onto the block upright before it was set into its final place (because it is hardly likely that anyone would paint something upside-down onto a block after it had been set into its final place in the chamber). Having blasted the chambers open, painting the marks onto the in-situ blocks with these upside-down, sideways orientations was absolutely CRUCIAL to Vyse's deception for it makes us THINK that the marks were painted onto the block BEFORE the block was set in place i.e. 4,500 years ago, ergo the marks must be genuine. It is nothing more than a clever ruse.

Isn’t the mark located in a relief chamber on one of the purpose cut blocks above the kings chamber? I think it was Robert Schock who said he had been in that chamber and there is no way to fake the cartouche because the space is so tight you can’t physically get to it.

Not so:



SC