Hello all,

Anthony's post in response to mine immediately above has vanished from my screen!
Perhaps I've run into a technical hitch somewhere.
I've been having problems for a few days now with the MaaT site dropping posts and then picking them up again.

Anthony raised some pertinent questions, etc., and I have just spent the last two hours writing a response to them - and there are a few points I have made that I would appreciate feedback on.
Anyway, I think I have quoted enough of Anthony's post for my reply to make sense to him and anybody else reading it. MJ
_________________________________________________________

Hello Anthony,

I wrote, ‘With respect, Anthony, why do you not write: "allegedly found in the pyramid"?

You reply, ‘Because I did not mean "allegedly". I meant the reports of what he found, based on eye witnesses to the events that followed.’

Okay, please will you post details of which account out of the four or five accounts is the true one?
And do you, perchance, have details of the eyewitnesses?


Regarding the King’s Chamber sarcophagus, I wrote, ‘Overall it is poorly finished and it has suffered a lot of damage since the 1800s (photographic evidence available for this).

You reply, ‘Would you mind providing it, then? I'll be happy to post it for you on my webspace.’

If I had the means to provide it to this Forum, Anthony, believe me I would.

If you refer to the various reports by Howard Vyse, Dixon, and Smyth (who took the photo) you will find the evidence of how much the sarcophagus suffered at the hands of Victorian souvenir hunters.
I must confess to being a little surprised that you don’t already have this evidence as part of your Pyramid theory.
The condition of the sarcophagus is an integral part of any hypothesis on the Pyramid, is it not?


I wrote, ‘And I notice you don't mention how one of the Arab accounts about Al Mamun has him planting items of some value in the Chamber to pacify his men after they entered the empty King’s Chamber.’
Why not?

You reply, ‘Because that is not an Arab account: it is a later interpretation of the events.’

Please see above


I wrote, ‘True, the Descending Passage was blocked with debris (to what extent is not known), but there is evidence that suggests the two or three blocks of granite found near the bottom of the Passage and in the Subterranean Chamber may have been there before Al Mamun burrowed into the Pyramid (see Smyth, Petrie, and the Edgars).

You reply, ‘Do you have a point to make here?’

Yes; and it is quite a simple one.
If the fragments of granite block found at the bottom of the Descending Passage and inside the Subterranean Passage are indeed from the Antechamber, then we need to explain how they got there (this applies also to the same type of fragment found in the Grotto).
The evidence (the size of the fragments and the dimensions of the Well Shaft) suggests that they arrived at their final destination via the Descending Passage.
However, as discovered by Caviglia, Howard Vyse, Smyth, the Edgar brothers, Petrie et al, there is a rather large obstruction sitting on the Descending Passage floor not far south of the opening to the Ascending Passage, and this obstruction is – judging from its overall appearance - the block of limestone that once covered the opening to the Ascending Passage in the Descending Passage roof.
See the problem?
How did the granite fragments get past this obstruction.
The implication is that they were there or thereabouts before Al Mamun started his tunnel.
If they are fragments of the Antechamber portcullis blocks, then perhaps you can explain how they managed to get from the Antechamber to the bottom of the Descending Passage.


I wrote, ‘It is not known where these fragments of granite came from.’

You reply, ‘They match the portcullis quite nicely.’

Please see above.


I wrote, ‘One popular idea is that the blocks are fragments of the portcullis blocks believed by some to have been used in the Antechamber to seal off the King's Chamber, but, again, there is evidence against this.’

You reply, ‘No, just the existence of an empty portcullis in the building where the portcullis stones were found.’

Which requires explanation of how some of these fragments found there way into the Well Shaft/Grotto and the Descending Passage before Al Mamun’s time.


You ask, ‘Pop quiz: who's buried in Grant's Tomb?’

Ummm, Mr and Mrs Grant’s son, Robert Edward?


I wrote, ‘This is not "mystery-mongering", Anthony.
There are several good, sound reasons to question the standard version of events.’

You reply, ‘Only if one is unfamiliar with the actual facts of the case.’

I would venture, Anthony, that quite a few MaaT posters and lurkers are very familiar with ‘the actual facts of the case’, but hold views and opinions that are not in agreement with yours.


I wrote, ‘I would suggest that here we are in fact dealing with the unfinished floors of the Queen's Chamber and its Passage.
The general view of this is that originally these floors were finished or intended to be finished with a layer of fine stone.’

Well, Petrie, amongst several others.
Most if not all the authors I have read seem to be of a like mind.
When you examine the floors of the Queen’s Chamber and its Passage and compare it to the flooring from the face of the Great Step through the Antechamber and into the King’s Chamber, it becomes highly suggestive that a similar arrangement, i.e. a raised floor between the walls, was intended for the Queen’s Chamber.
As the Queen’s Chamber and Passage are built entirely of fine limestone, then I would suggest that it is quite plausible any flooring introduced would have been of the same or similar material.

MJ



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2007 12:59PM by MJ Thomas.