Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 02:50:43 -0700

From: Jiri Mruzek 

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic

Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens

Martin Stower wrote:

> Greg Reeder wrote:

[. . .]

> > Well Jiri you could be correct on that one. However if you are refering
> >to the picture of "Napoleon in the King's Chamber" reproduced in Pteter
> >Tomkins SECRETS OF THE GREAT PYRAMID (pg50) that is more propanda than
> >historical document and there is someone standing in front of the very
> >corner of which we speak.Tomkins does show a drawing (p104) " Measuring
> >the granite coffer before it was vandalized" but it is somewhat crude and
> >has no reference to who drew it or when or it the artist had ever even
> >been in the King's Chamber!. I tried finding a more scientific drawing of
> >the King's Chamber from my repro of the Description De L'Egypte but no
> >luck. There must be one in the original? [. . .]

> I have the Taschen reproduction of Le Description, which contains all the
> pictures (albeit on a much-reduced scale).
> The depiction of the sarcophagus - I'm not about to call it something else
> - occurs in the context of an imaginative reconstruction of the Arab entry
> into the pyramid; I dare say neither the artist nor the engraver witnessed
> that event. They depicted the sarcophagus as they imagined it was at the
> time: undamaged.

They imagined it so, because they had an occasion to see it with their
own eyes as still being in good order, when accompanying Napoleon.
The very fact that Napoleon had brought a large number of savants to
Egypt with him, communicates intent to study Egypt's architectural
glories seriously. 

> Even as a reconstruction, the engraving is inaccurate: it omits the dovetail
> which would hold the lid. (This - in answer to an earlier question of Jiri's
> - is why Piazzi Smyth was `astonished' by this feature; he was misled in his
> expectations by `the French work'.

The dovetail is a detail, which it is possible to skip, especially, if done from
memory, and still depict the coffer correctly in general outlines. However, if
the coffer was extensively damaged back then already, the depiction would
become misleading.  The dovetail does not set, nor dominate the coffer's shape
the way large missing pieces do.  Napoleon would have been pictured by a
ruined sarcophagus,  a romantic feature.

> It's worth noting also that his preferred
> term `coffer' was coined before he'd even seen the sarcophagus - on the basis
> of exactly this misconception of its form.)
> In short, these depictions constitute no evidence at all of the state of the
> sarcophagus in 1798.

Disagreed, they are evidence with certain limitations.

> The pyramid was open for centuries before Napoleon got there, and was
> frequently entered by travellers.

Funny, I don't have that impression. It was a dark, spooky place of
owerpowering foul stench of dead vermin, dust, bats, etc.
Likewise, I don't imagine that under the Arab authority anyone was
at liberty to damage the Pyramid, nor had any compelling interest in
marring the empty coffer.

During the Christian era, it was forbidden to enter the pyramids.
Prior to the Christian era in Egypt, the Great Pyramid would be in
very little danger from vandalism.
So, I am really sorry to have to conclude that if someone has to
carry the blame for damaging the coffer in King's Chamber, it is
those frivolous American and European tourists from the quote of
Piazzi Smyth: ".. the painful thunder of the coffer being banged,
to close upon breaking, with a big stone swung by their Arab helps"

> That the sarcophagus was pristine
> before 1798, but extensively damaged after, is improbable.

To differ, I see it as the most likely version.

> Many travellers recorded their impressions of a visit to the pyramid, some
> - Greaves, for example - in great detail. I'll see if I can find any
> material on the state of the sarcophagus pre-Napoleon.

Back to Tompkins and Greaves - Page 27 of SOGP. Tompkins writes:
" In London Greaves had furnished himself with a special 10-foot
measuring rod based on a standard English foot deposited in Grand Hall,
finely divided into 10,000 equal parts.
With great care he measured the length, breadth and width of the King's
Chamber , commenting that "the structure of it hath been the labour of
an exquisite hand." He counted its tiers of granite, measured their
length and breadth, and did likewise to the empty coffer, even to the
thousandth part of a foot, finding it to be 6.488 English feet"

-end quote-

Edited in May 2003
You may want to skip from here to the last paragraph,  but this number 6488
is pretty close to 6480, which is 1/4 of the zodiacal cycle of 25920 years. Also,
Mario Stecchini mentions the pair 80/81 in his discussion of ancient Egyptian
weights.  80 x  81 =  6,480

80 and 81 happen to be two of the thirteen values used by  the so called Frame.

80 / 81 equals 0.987654320987..etc

10 / 81 equals 01234567..

This is Scientific numerology! :) :) :) :) :) :)
*
The IMPORTANT part of the quote above is the mention of
measurements of the coffer by Greaves to the accuracy of 1/1,000.
"even to the thousandth part of a foot"

Would you agree that such measurements would be impossible if
the coffer were significantly damaged? Ergo, it was in good shape.

Thanks to both Martin and Greg,

Jiri Mruzek

********************

355/113=3.141592.. ( Now, that's what I call Scientific Numerology! )

Next     Top Menu   Nasca Monkey Report   Namon's Gallery