> I am not interested in the graffiti or what it says at this
> point, but rather the idea those splatter marks are actually
> from planar leveling. An interesting idea, but just "saying"
> something is true does not make it so. To make your case you
> need context as if this is indeed what they are they would be
> found elsewhere. I am not saying you are "wrong", or not,
> Philip, so no need to get your panties in a wad, just asking ...
You just HAD TO insert some "panties" attitude, huh?
There is already some compelling "context" to support the notion that those stray dots are planar leveling marks: They clearly are on peaks on the masonry, they are distributed fairly evenly across the surface, and they are on the planar surfaces across several blocks photographed in Campbell's chamber by Colette Dowell. They are not limited to the vicinity of any set of glyphs or on any specific block.
> ...if you had taken the time to find other examples outside G1 that
> might help prove your theory by context, but apparently this is
> not required for you to believe something is true or not.
More nastiness. incredible.
I did take the time to find other applicable examples and could not find any. Likewise, your examples, while appreciated, are not applicable either since they show very tarnished stone surfaces or are too low resolution to accurately view such fine detail, with one possible exception: On your "image-244.jpg", I have no idea how that surface was created, but it doesn't seem chiseled except for what appears to be newer chisel marks toward the center of the photo. Having said that, there still are signs of what appears to be residual red stray dots, and to see them I increased the image contrast and saturation without changing the color curve:
Regarding your other examples, I appreciate you trying to find other examples, but all of the blocks are either so filthy or photographed in such low resolution that any remaining stray dots are difficult to detect. None of your examples are nearly as hi res, well lit, or pristine as Dowell's photos and are not suitable for verifying whether they are planar leveling marks.
> On a different note:
> Bauval finally posted an uncropped picture of the so called
> "hidden" cartouche by the way:
> Just what I thought. It too terminates at the joint between the
> two blocks. Of course the last glyph is covered with plaster.
> Why is there no cartouche around it if this is the pharaohs
The glyphs that are shown are simply the "gang" attribution. The "Khufu" cartouche with royal oval are not visible be cause they are allegedly "hidden" under the seam formed by the side wall. I believe that's what Bauvel claimed in his earlier discussion in this forum.
Who ever said those visible glyphs were showing a pharaoh's name or that it should be enclosed in a royal oval?!
Post Edited (11-Sep-14 23:39)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?