> SC: Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Pedantry aside, I think
> any reasonable interpretation of my statement within the
> context of the post, that is the conclusion that most would
> come to.
Of course it is but that is not what you are saying. But glad we cleared that up as your mock-up is clearly trying to imply something different as if it were a representation of fact by way of Belzoni's description which is not true. I think a "reasonable" person would have been a little clearer if not made the mock-up at all. A bit disingenuous "IMO".
> SC: I don't normally deal with pedantry but I'll bite.
Apparently you don't deal much with the honest representation of the facts either, which for those that do I can see why asking such of you would seem "pedantic". Though I have challenged the validity of your ideas and veracity of your representation of the facts in support of them I have never gotten personal with you Scott unless provoked. I don't have to play nice if you'd rather I didn't.
> The stone box was "filled" with earth and stones as opposed to
> being filled with something else, let's say for example, filled
> with gold or filled with bull flop.
Now who is being "pedantic"? But be honest now as you are clearly implying, if not stating, this amalgam of "rubbish", as it was referred to after careful inspection, was of a material and consistency of what one would find in an Osiris bed 2,000yrs after the fact because to you they are one and the same which to be as generous as possible is just not supported by the facts.
> I did not say it was
> "filled" to the top of the box, or even that it was
> half-filled--just filled with earth and stones as in that is
> what the stone box contained.
Your mock-up with a 3/4 filled sarcophagus with dirt says differently now doesn't it?
> There I hope that is much clearer
> to you now? But do tell--what exactly is YOUR estimation of a
> "great quantity" of earth and stones? Oh, don't even
I won't. Nor would I as it is clear Belzoni's first off-hand impression is that it was a pile of "earth and stone" which after closer inspection by a qualified individual later becomes an indiscriminate pile of "rubbish".
Thanos5150: ...nor is there any reason to believe he was
> the "first" to do so in modern times ....
> SC: Then you'll no doubt be able to present another earlier
> source describing the content of this stone container?
Come now Scott. You are not saying he was the first to describe it, you are trying to pass it off he was the first to look inside to suggest what he found was original to the sarcophagus. And given Osiris beds were not invented until the Late Period, if we play your game then if it were an Osiris bed, which it wasn't, it was intrusive made nearly 2,000yrs after the fact.
> SC: I have already presented my reason (with evidence) for
> taking the view that the "vast quantity" of earth and stones
> found in this stone container was its original content as,
> IMO, it was emulated with smaller, ceremonial
> earth-filled boxes by later Egyptians.
And I have already presented why this evidence does not apply which you did not address.
> SC: Or the bones were fairly large covered by a "great
> quantity" of earth and stones.
"The lid [of the sarcophagus of G2] had been broken at
> the side, so that the sarcophagus was half open." - G. Belzoni,
> Narrative of the Operations and Recent Discoveries within the
> Pyramids, Temples, Tombs, and Excavations, in Egypt and Nubia,
> (1820), p.271
> SC: And then, some 63 years later, we read this from Petrie,
> regarding the same stone box in G2
"The lid is lying on the floor of the chamber,
> unbroken." - W. M. F. Petrie, The Pyramids and Temples of
> Gizeh, Chap. 9 (76). Inside of Second Pyramid (1883)
> SC: What these two (seemingly conflicting accounts) seem to be
> telling us is:
> a) The lid was unbroken (just as we see it today).
> b) It was broken at the side i.e. damaged along its front edge
> (in order to wrench it off).
I'm sorry, who is being pedantic now? According to Belzoni, regardless of whether the lid was actually broken or not, the sarcophagus was "half open". He did not need to take it off to look inside nor does he say he did. You are implying he was the first to take the lid off to salvage the idea the contents were undisturbed to comply with your Osiris bed scheme which in his own words makes no mention he had to take it off to look inside nor does he mention doing so later. Surely the operation of removing the massive lid would have been of interest to his readers. But no.
> Now, if the actual lid is unbroken, how is the stone box "half
> open"? And how do you perform a proper search of a half-open
> box that has an unbroken lid without removing said lid? And why
> did Petrie find the lid on the floor 63 years later (thus the
> box is surely then fully open)?
> Do explain.
Yes, if the lid were not "broken" however would one possibly look inside? Belzoni said the lid was "broken at the side", which it is at the corner:
and that the sarcophagus was "half open". Where does he say the lid being broken is what made the sarcophagus "half open"? Nowhere, and today we know this is not the case. Therefore we can conclude the reason it was half open was because the lid had already been moved, not because it was "broken":
Which easily could have been accomplished by sliding it (*gasp*) towards the back just like it is propped up today and the direction it would naturally go when being pried on from the front, say like the front corner where the damage is. Which leads to the most obvious conclusion is that when Belzoni says "half open" he means from front to back not side to side making removal of the lid unnecessary.
And are you suggesting that no one else entered G2 between Belzoni and Petrie 63yrs later? Clearly they did.
Thanos5150: Interestingly, he then goes to look around
> the chamber for inscriptions which he finds the walls covered
> in Arabic writing, among possibly others, meaning obviously the
> place was well visited before him.
> SC: Well I think that "the place" was "well visted" in earlier
> times is fairly obvious given the damage to the front edge of
> the lid. They had a look in the box, found nothing but earth,
> stones, some animal bones and left (not before leaving their
> Arabic markings on the walls, however).
"the place" was "well visited"? Are these words a problem for you?
Regardless, so the Arabs, among others for thousands of years, can rummage through this "rubbish" without taking the lid off but Belzoni can't? And if they were looking for treasure then why wouldn't they remove the rubbish instead of just haphazardly rifling through it and leaving it there? Somehow I think thieves would approach the situation a little different than Belzoni.
Thanos5150: The next day a gentleman Pieri came with him
> in which having "rummaged through the rubbish" found several
> pieces of bone which he claims were later sent to London and
> "proved" to be those of a bull, but this is not been verified
> since. Could be chicken bones for all we know.
> SC: They were bull bones. I explain in my book where they went,
> who analysed them and what subsequently happened to them.
Can't wait. Then we should get some idea then how large they were right?
Thanos5150: There is literally nothing to suggest what
> was in the stone box was original if only to the
> SC: Except for the fact that we have later Egyptians making
> what were IMO smaller, ceremonial versions--small
> stones boxes 'filled' with earth and stones, buried in the
> ground with a large rock (symbolising the pyramid) placed on
This is total BS Scott. This is all you and only you so don't even try and pass this off as anything remotely as "fact". I have easily discredited this fantasy of yours more than once now. All anyone has to do is follow the link from the previous thread.
Thanos5150: Your interpretation of Belzoni's remarks
> seems quite at odds with what he actually says.
> SC: I beg to differ.
I'm going with Belzoni on this one.
Post Edited (12-Mar-15 06:05)