RB: Any clues?
SC: Well I was in the GP in 2008 (along with yourself) but didn't go near the 'Relieving Chambers'. Does that mean you can score me off your list? :-)
I personally think you have this a little back-to-front--a bit like hearing someone stole a piece of the Mona Lisa only to later discover they actually stole a piece of fake Mona Lise. What's more important--finding out if you have the real Mona Lisa or recovering the fake piece that was stolen?
You accept the markings are contemporary with the era of ca.2,550 BCE. On what evidence? How do you know they are genuine? Have they been scientifically tested? You cannot possibly know they are genuine until such tests have been made. Or are you happy simply to accept the word of a known fraudster?
Let us look at the points you raise in support of your belief:
RB: In any case, we have the physical evidence viz. the graffiti inside the joints...
SC: A couple of things here:
1) None of these gaps contain any cartouches or registers of hieroglyphs (I confirmed this with Graham Hancock who has observed the markings between these gaps first hand). It seems that all that can be observed therein are random mason's marks.
2) This is one of the primary reasons mainstream Egyptology uses to assert the markings between these blocks MUST be genuine. What they simply fail to realise is that even if there WAS a cartouche between the tight spaces between these immovable blocks (which there isn't), it STILL could have been forged. I explain how this could have been very easily accomplished (without a painter's brush) in my forthcoming book (credited to Dennis Payne)--it is VERY simple to do and requires only a little lateral thinking.
RB: ...the crystalization on the ochre paint...
SC: Here is what Dr Robert Schoch has to say:
"Studying them closely, however, they [the painted marks] looked authentically ancient to me. I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia, and the inscriptions continue under the overlying blocks." - Dr Robert Schoch, from here.
SC: So we have a process that, in Dr Schoch's own words, can take "centuries" to make these markings look "authentically ancient". In other words--if Vyse created these markings almost two centuries ago then, according to Dr Schoch, they would (by now) look "authentically ancient".
Do you have any other evidence that supports your view that the markings are genuine 4th dynasty?
RB: The "evidence" that you present from Vyse's diary is not convincing at all.
SC: I disagree. Over and above which, you have seen only a small portion of the evidence I will be presenting (and not the most damning). More will be presented in the next issue of Atlantis Rising and Nexus magazines and more still (the most damning of all) that I am keeping for my published book.
My own view is let us determine FIRST if these markings are indeed contemporary with the structure and, if so, then we can have a witch hunt. If it turns out they are not contemporary with the structure then we will have found our crook--Col. Howard Vyse.
I spoke to Fuzzy a few months back and wondered that perhaps Hawass himself had taken the (earlier) missing samples from the cartouche, had them dated himself and perhaps did not like the result that came back which may have prompted him to say this:
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 (Egpyt Independent, 8th July, 2010) From here.
Post Edited (14-Jul-14 16:42)