As we have learned throughout this book, it is the view of Egyptologists that the painted marks within the hidden chambers of the Great Pyramid were Fourth-Dynasty graffiti; crude hieroglyphics painted onto stone blocks by the work gangs cutting the stone at the quarries. Egyptologists do not believe that the quarry marks on the blocks within these chambers were made in-situ, i.e., once the wall and ceiling blocks had been set in place within the chambers.
However the evidence presented in this book suggests that this is an erroneous view. In this chapter further evidence will be presented that supports the view that these markings were indeed painted in-situ by nineteenth-century hoaxers and that the Suphis/Khufu cartouche on the gabled roof trussing in Campbell’s Chamber is also a nineteenth-century fake.
The conventional opinion of the vertical alignment of the Khufu cartouche on the gabled ceiling block of Campbell’s Chamber is that the cartouche and its associated crew name was painted onto the block while it was lying horizontally at the quarry. When the block eventually arrived at the pyramid it was then rotated and set upright into the ceiling. Thus the horizontally painted cartouche was now effectively rotated 90° and appears vertically aligned on the chamber roof trussing. This seems all very reasonable and perfectly plausible--until we take a much closer look.
In 2005, the French photographer Patrick Chapuis presented one of the most stunning, high-resolution photographs ever taken of the Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber. This remarkable photograph revealed some astonishing features of the painted cartouche, features that had, hitherto, gone completely unnoticed.
Using the Chapuis photograph along with some others by Colette Dowall, Ph.D., independent researcher and art expert, John Snape showed that the Khufu cartouche was painted by starting at the bottom-right corner of the cartouche oval. Unsurprisingly, it is in this area of the cartouche that we find the red ochre paint is most concentrated. The cartouche, from this bottom-right point, was drawn upward and round counter-clockwise where the paint gradually becomes thinner as the brush moves around the cartouche to its finishing point at the bottom-left.
A close examination of the Khufu cartouche on the roof block reveals something quite peculiar. At the bottom-right section where the paint is at its thickest, traces of at least two runs of paint can be observed running vertically down the vertical block.
Furthermore, where the cartouche roof block meets the low support wall, traces of red paint can be observed spreading out horizontally along the joint. Also, just to the bottom-left of the cartouche, as pointed out by independent researcher Philip Femano, Ph.D., the roof block appears to have been scraped in a long horizontal line as though to remove something from the surface. Could this be evidence of a botched paint job where unwanted paint has trickled down from the bottom-right section of the cartouche, where the paint was at its thickest, and spread out along the joint of the low support wall?
What these paint runs seem to indicate is that this cartouche, contrary to what Egyptologists state, was actually painted in-situ and not when the block was cut at the quarry. This is to say that this cartouche (and crew name) was painted onto this roof trussing only after the block was set in place. One might not immediately understand the implication of such a finding, but the simple fact is that this finding proves quite categorically that this cartouche must then be a modern fake.
We know this because the ancient Egyptian scribes would never have painted this vertical cartouche in-situ in the manner that we observe it, with the signs rotated 90 degrees (sideways) within the vertical cartouche. Were an ancient Egyptian scribe to have painted this cartouche in-situ then the vertical bar would have been placed at the bottom of the cartouche oval and the characters within the vertical cartouche would have been painted standing upright.
In short, whoever painted the Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber painted it onto the ceiling block in such a way as to give the impression that it had not been painted in-situ, but the tell-tale runs of paint contradict this notion. And if it was painted in-situ (as the paint evidence suggests) then it has clearly been faked, since an ancient Egyptian scribe would never have painted an in-situ cartouche oriented in this manner.
you've probably read this and may have been in previous board debate.
The Runny Red Ochre as noted by Scott is new for me.
Others reading here may have missed this key witness of evidence the Campbell
Chamber Khufu cartouche was drawn in Situ.
With this in view....it would be great to study the other chambers graffiti for
Evidence of Mr Gravity law at work.
Sitchins challenge via his Publish has generated the various inspections of the
Graffiti in physical. ..
In documents...and journals.
Scott Creighton / excerpt/Unexplained mysteries forum - 2014
SC: The relevant issue of this thread is not about "fringies" which you seem to like prattling on about for whatever reason. The issue is why did Vyse, in his private journal, present the Khufu cartouche in Campbell's Chamber (TWICE - 27th May & 16th June 1837) in his private, handwritten journal without any of the hatched lines in the disc of that cartouche we observe in the chamber today? Why did Vyse, three weeks after making this **ahem** discovery, all of a sudden decide to draw a Khufu cartouche in his private journal now WITH hatched lines? And why did Vyse place cross (X) marks above the blank disc and hatched disc? Why are the discs on his page of 16th June 1837 drawn with a single disc outline with the single exception of the ONE hatched disc on that page which is drawn with a double outline? Why are there contradictory statements written on that page by Vyse--Khufu cartouche with blanks disc and Khufu cartouche with hatched disc, both in Campbell's Chamber. They can't both be right.
These are the questions of this thread. The tone of your post gives the impression that you consider these pages of Vyse's private journal and the questions they raise as just another fringe pursuit that does not require any serious discussion.
So...while the peer review roar at Sitchin over Anunnaki and other opinion
His challenge generated interest ...where a following considered the Hoax claim
As possibly being valid.
Scott Creighton / Unexplained Mysteries forum
SC: Walter Allen tells us that his great-grandfather Humphries Brewer who apparently worked with Vyse at Giza in 1837 had a dispute with Raven and Hill—Vyse’s assistants—about painting marks in the pyramids. “Feint marks were repainted, some were new.”
Way to go Sitchin...
Now we have the evidence of the red ochre paint runs : )