The Great Pyramid Hoax - New Evidence of Forgery in the Great Pyramid

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton


SC: You may not see but scientists may well see. We won't know until we allow them in there.

SC


Can you tell us exactly what they would do there? How many and with what expertise, what equipment and of course the source of funding and how much it will cost?

You might also want to be specific on who should be doing it, both from the practical aspect, the administration of it and who will analyze the results.

What would they be looking for - exactly - and how it would be measured

Where precisely in the chambers are they going to look?

How they would find whatever it is you think is there and what is the expect outcome (how do you measure success).
edit on 10/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Scott I'm wondering if you missed my question in regards to Vyse's 'conviction for fraud', what again was the proof of this? I was wondering because 1/3 of Members of Parliament to include Wellington were also elected from such arrangements. How many convictions for this 'crime' where there from say 1808 to 1830? It would seem you are taking this out of context of the social and political life of England at that time.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Hanslune

Scott I'm wondering if you missed my question in regards to Vyse's 'conviction for fraud', what again was the proof of this? I was wondering because 1/3 of Members of Parliament to include Wellington were also elected from such arrangements. How many convictions for this 'crime' where there from say 1808 to 1830? It would seem you are taking this out of context of the social and political life of England at that time.


SC: I have no idea what you are talking about. Vyse was never convicted of his electoral fraud because the evidence proving it was not 'available' at that time. He is now dead and so cannot be tried even though there is now evidence showing that he committed electoral fraud. But the evidence is clear--Vyse secured 932 votes at his election through bribery, an illegal practice at the time.

Convicted or not--he still committed electoral fraud, thus, we may reasonably question where else in his life might he have perpetrated fraud?

SC
edit on 21/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Oh so you admit he wasn't actually convicted of a crime. But you missed the key point was such bribery illegal in that time period and if so how many people were convicted of said crime.

If it was crime why did he note it down in his journal? Seems a strange thing to do? Unless it was a common practice to do so?

You do realize don't you, especially as you have been told this on other websites, that 1/3 of Parliament did the same thing, for centuries, even Lord Wellington did so, so how many of those folks were convicted of that crime?

I believe you are taking the event out of context for your own use.

Here is a wiki discussion of the situation in England this time:




Many constituencies, especially those with small electorates, were under the control of rich landowners, and were known as nomination boroughs or pocket boroughs, because they were said to be in the pockets of their patrons. Most patrons were noblemen or landed gentry who could use their local influence, prestige, and wealth to sway the voters. This was particularly true in rural counties, and in small boroughs situated near a large landed estate. Some noblemen even controlled multiple constituencies: for example, the Duke of Norfolk controlled eleven, while the Earl of Lonsdale controlled nine.[16] Writing in 1821, Sydney Smith proclaimed that "The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of boroughs. They are our masters!"[17] T. H. B. Oldfield claimed in his Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland that, out of the 514 members representing England and Wales, about 370 were selected by nearly 180 patrons.[18] A member who represented a pocket borough was expected to vote as his patron ordered, or else lose his seat at the next election. Voters in some constituencies resisted outright domination by powerful landlords, but were still often open to corruption. Electors were bribed individually in some boroughs, and collectively in others. In 1771, for example, it was revealed that 81 voters in New Shoreham (who constituted a majority of the electorate) formed a corrupt organisation that called itself the "Christian Club", and regularly sold the borough to the highest bidder.[19] Especially notorious for their corruption were the "nabobs", or individuals who had amassed fortunes in the British colonies in Asia and the West Indies. The nabobs, in some cases, even managed to wrest control of boroughs from the nobility and the gentry.[20] Lord Chatham, Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 1760s, casting an eye on the fortunes made in India commented that "the importers of foreign gold have forced their way into Parliament, by such a torrent of corruption as no private hereditary fortune could resist".[21]


To my understanding of the history of this you are looking at something 'everyone was doing' in particular it was being done - for centuries - by the ruling elites, which is why, as far as I can determine, no one was every convicted of this particular 'crime'.


Edited to add: in 1883 the Corrupt and illegal Practices Prevention act was past and with it bribery was placed under control and I believe that some 90+ plus members of Parliament were subsequently tried under this law, but what happened before this?

I'm sure you've extensively study this before saying Vyse was criminal so what is the answer?

edit on 21/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
Oh so you admit he wasn't actually convicted of a crime. But you missed the key point was such bribery illegal in that time period and if so how many people were convicted of said crime.

If it was crime why did he note it down in his journal? Seems a strange thing to do? Unless it was a common practice to do so?

You do realize don't you, especially as you have been told this on other websites, that 1/3 of Parliament did the same thing, for centuries, even Lord Wellington did so, so how many of those folks were convicted of that crime?

I believe you are taking the event out of context for your own use.

Here is a wiki discussion of the situation in England this time:




Many constituencies, especially those with small electorates, were under the control of rich landowners, and were known as nomination boroughs or pocket boroughs, because they were said to be in the pockets of their patrons. Most patrons were noblemen or landed gentry who could use their local influence, prestige, and wealth to sway the voters. This was particularly true in rural counties, and in small boroughs situated near a large landed estate. Some noblemen even controlled multiple constituencies: for example, the Duke of Norfolk controlled eleven, while the Earl of Lonsdale controlled nine.[16] Writing in 1821, Sydney Smith proclaimed that "The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of boroughs. They are our masters!"[17] T. H. B. Oldfield claimed in his Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland that, out of the 514 members representing England and Wales, about 370 were selected by nearly 180 patrons.[18] A member who represented a pocket borough was expected to vote as his patron ordered, or else lose his seat at the next election. Voters in some constituencies resisted outright domination by powerful landlords, but were still often open to corruption. Electors were bribed individually in some boroughs, and collectively in others. In 1771, for example, it was revealed that 81 voters in New Shoreham (who constituted a majority of the electorate) formed a corrupt organisation that called itself the "Christian Club", and regularly sold the borough to the highest bidder.[19] Especially notorious for their corruption were the "nabobs", or individuals who had amassed fortunes in the British colonies in Asia and the West Indies. The nabobs, in some cases, even managed to wrest control of boroughs from the nobility and the gentry.[20] Lord Chatham, Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 1760s, casting an eye on the fortunes made in India commented that "the importers of foreign gold have forced their way into Parliament, by such a torrent of corruption as no private hereditary fortune could resist".[21]


To my understanding of the history of this you are looking at something 'everyone was doing' in particular it was being done - for centuries - by the ruling elites, which is why, as far as I can determine, no one was every convicted of this particular 'crime'.


Edited to add: in 1883 the Corrupt and illegal Practices Prevention act was past and with it bribery was placed under control and I believe that some 90+ plus members of Parliament were subsequently tried under this law, but what happened before this?

I'm sure you've extensively study this before saying Vyse was criminal so what is the answer?



SC: Buying votes at elections in 1837 was illegal and had been for over a 100 years when Vyse stood as a candidate in the Beverley constituency. Indeed, it was this very 'rotten borough' that led directly to the Bribery Bill, 1729. It was illegal. Period.


Bradshaw was unseated in 1729, his agents at Beverley were imprisoned, and the 'scandalous practices' revealed led directly to the passing of the 1729 Bribery Act. (from here).


Everyone wasn't doing it. Many in the Beverley constituency clearly were still doing it as Vyse was able to buy 932 votes (old habits die hard). There were still a number of other rotten boroughs at this time but they were not all rotten. Clearly Vyse chose well, targetting a seat where bribery was STILL commonplace and where his family's vast fortunes could easily secure him a comprehensive victory. And just because some MPs were actively bribing their electorate does not make it legally or morally right. You'll be telling us next that because 100,000 people in the US are thieving from stores that makes it okay for everyone else to do it. Absurd. There were very good and sound reasons why the British Government passed the Bribery Bill, 1729. But that didn't matter to Vyse and his ilk--they seemed to think they were above the law and arrogantly flouted it.

Vyse bought 932 votes in clear contradiction to the Bribery Bill of 1729. He committed electoral fraud and, thereby, broke the law of the time. He was a fraudster. Accept the fact.

SC
edit on 22/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hanslune
Oh so you admit he wasn't actually convicted of a crime. But you missed the key point was such bribery illegal in that time period and if so how many people were convicted of said crime.

If it was crime why did he note it down in his journal? Seems a strange thing to do? Unless it was a common practice to do so?

You do realize don't you, especially as you have been told this on other websites, that 1/3 of Parliament did the same thing, for centuries, even Lord Wellington did so, so how many of those folks were convicted of that crime?

I believe you are taking the event out of context for your own use.

Here is a wiki discussion of the situation in England this time:




Many constituencies, especially those with small electorates, were under the control of rich landowners, and were known as nomination boroughs or pocket boroughs, because they were said to be in the pockets of their patrons. Most patrons were noblemen or landed gentry who could use their local influence, prestige, and wealth to sway the voters. This was particularly true in rural counties, and in small boroughs situated near a large landed estate. Some noblemen even controlled multiple constituencies: for example, the Duke of Norfolk controlled eleven, while the Earl of Lonsdale controlled nine.[16] Writing in 1821, Sydney Smith proclaimed that "The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of boroughs. They are our masters!"[17] T. H. B. Oldfield claimed in his Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland that, out of the 514 members representing England and Wales, about 370 were selected by nearly 180 patrons.[18] A member who represented a pocket borough was expected to vote as his patron ordered, or else lose his seat at the next election. Voters in some constituencies resisted outright domination by powerful landlords, but were still often open to corruption. Electors were bribed individually in some boroughs, and collectively in others. In 1771, for example, it was revealed that 81 voters in New Shoreham (who constituted a majority of the electorate) formed a corrupt organisation that called itself the "Christian Club", and regularly sold the borough to the highest bidder.[19] Especially notorious for their corruption were the "nabobs", or individuals who had amassed fortunes in the British colonies in Asia and the West Indies. The nabobs, in some cases, even managed to wrest control of boroughs from the nobility and the gentry.[20] Lord Chatham, Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 1760s, casting an eye on the fortunes made in India commented that "the importers of foreign gold have forced their way into Parliament, by such a torrent of corruption as no private hereditary fortune could resist".[21]


To my understanding of the history of this you are looking at something 'everyone was doing' in particular it was being done - for centuries - by the ruling elites, which is why, as far as I can determine, no one was every convicted of this particular 'crime'.


Edited to add: in 1883 the Corrupt and illegal Practices Prevention act was past and with it bribery was placed under control and I believe that some 90+ plus members of Parliament were subsequently tried under this law, but what happened before this?

I'm sure you've extensively study this before saying Vyse was criminal so what is the answer?



SC: Buying votes at elections in 1837 was illegal and had been for over a 100 years when Vyse stood as a candidate in the Beverley constituency. Indeed, it was this very 'rotten borough' that led directly to the Bribery Bill, 1729. It was illegal. Period.


Bradshaw was unseated in 1729, his agents at Beverley were imprisoned, and the 'scandalous practices' revealed led directly to the passing of the 1729 Bribery Act. (from here).


Everyone wasn't doing it. Many in the Beverley constituency clearly were still doing it as Vyse was able to buy 932 votes (old habits die hard). There were still a number of other rotten boroughs at this time but they were not all rotten. Clearly Vyse chose well, targetting a seat where bribery was STILL commonplace and where his family's vast fortunes could easily secure him a comprehensive victory. And just because some MPs were actively bribing their electorate does not make it legally or morally right. You'll be telling us next that because 100,000 people in the US are thieving from stores that makes it okay for everyone else to do it. Absurd. There were very good and sound reasons why the British Government passed the Bribery Bill, 1729. But that didn't matter to Vyse and his ilk--they seemed to think they were above the law and arrogantly flouted it.

Vyse bought 932 votes in clear contradiction to the Bribery Bill of 1729. He committed electoral fraud and, thereby, broke the law of the time. He was a fraudster. Accept the fact.

SC


The facts are that Bradshaw, the next sentence you didn't reproduce




At the next general election in 1734 Hotham surprisingly joined forces with Bradshaw as a fellow Whig and convincingly defeated the Tory candidate, Pelham. There was no indication that the result reflected the political views of the electorate and in 1738, at the byelection caused by Hotham's death, Pelham was narrowly returned in a contest with Sir Robert Hildyard, Bt. Far more votes were cast for Pelham at the following general election in 1741, when he and a fellow Tory, William Strickland of Beverley, defeated Bradshaw.


By the way what were the gross and corrupt practices that Bradshaw was accused of? Was it just vote buying.....?

Interesting isn't it from what I can tell Bradshaw suffered no conviction that I can discovered. What it probably was that there were two many votes cast, ie more votes were cast that voters, a similar incident occurred in the Spendthrift election later on, which is why it was overturned and the 'agents' convicted.

Perhaps you could research that?

The question is as it was deemed illegal but it was also the way most politicians of that age got elected was it more a socially accept way, ie the way to get elected?

I say it was, now if that was the way it was done was it truly fraud? I say its not, certainly not showing him to be a demented evil man that you seem to be trying to do. You don't seem to have a good understanding of that period of time. If to get elected that was what you did he did it.

Considering so many British Politicians of the time were doing it and House of Lords was actively working to minimize the penalties for it, one has to reflect on how serious a 'crime' it was.

Charles Wellesley (son of lord Wellesley) paid 1,600 pounds for his seat and he was investigated and accepted.....

So why did he write it down?

Oh one correction from what you said



Buying votes at elections in 1837 was illegal and had been for over a 100 years when Vyse stood as a candidate in the Beverley constituency.


Actually it was I believe 1807 and well before the 1832 bill

Why do you think the Petition of Philip Staple, Esquire, failed?
edit on 22/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)
edit on 22/8/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

SC: Link to Bradshaw quote was merely to show you when the Bribery Act (1729) came into force.

Yes 1807 and not--as I stated--1837. So the act making it illegal to bribe constituents had been in place for about 78 years when Vyse stood as a candidate in Beverley. Vyse would have known it was illegal to bribe constuents but it did not deter him.

Staple? I tried looking for the answer to that some time ago--to little avail. At that time it was perfectly possible for a petitioner to withdraw his petition. A later act of parliament made it impossible to withdraw a petition because some were dropping their petition after receiving payments to ensourage them to do so. Vyse had friends in high places (including the Duke of Cumberland) to make this petition 'go away'.

Likewise there are questions over Vyse's election to Honiton in 1812. Two candidates stood and given that there was no third candidate, there was no contenst and so both candidates were elected to Parliament. There was no contest as the third contender had 'allowed himself' to be waylaid at Taunton. Easier, I suppose, to bribe just ONE that 932!

SC
edit on 23/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

So what we need is the image of the original statements in Vyse's journal, plus the page before and after to make sure of the context. However, I'm not sure what all this has to do with your failure to prove anything in regards to the catouches, seems a major rewrite is in store for you.

We need Staples petition which I believe will show he was complaining about something other than vote buying.

So Bradshaw was not convicted of anything and as I noted that fracas was most probably about too many votes and not vote buying.

From another website a good comment was made by honorable Questionmark




Richard Vyse and his son Richard William Howard Vyse lasted combined one parliamentary term (7 years) in Westminster, the son got in because the father ceded his seat to him (parliamentary elective office could be ceded to next of kin at the time). That tells us that the campaigner at the time was the father and not the son, any vote buying cannot be attributed to Jr.


The links are in the original. I have not had time to look at this as my wife has decided we are going camping! So I will be back to this Monday.

Now back to the idea that in 1808 this was a grievous criminal sin, my own study of that period for my own book (covering the period 1836-1838) gave me a distinct view that this was a common occurrence, less so in that period because of the 1832 law but particularly common during the height of the Napoleonic wars.

So who was convicted of this crime?



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

We need Staples petition which I believe will show he was complaining about something other than vote buying.



This is a link to the text of Staple's petition.

I also found this link and this link on another forum. They provide a bit more detail about the background.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Fantastic proposal I thought Scott.
And I'm totally new here so I have no idea what beefs have gone on before
with some of the ATS members. Therefore as a newbie I thought it was provocative and
certainly within the realms of possibility as I understand them .
Since 4th grade (I'm 46)
I've read just about everything I'd come across about history of the Giza Plateau,
both Esoteric and Director of Antiquities approved.
My opinion, much like that gal from Boston University,
is that the complex was connected to water.
Water that was there because the delta had an entirely different geography.
At least 5000 years before the holy 2500 BCE.
edit on 23-8-2014 by UnderKingsPeak because: Grammar.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Creighton is still trying to sell this smelly old argument?

He has been told long since that even William Wilberforce, standing for the county of Yorkshire in this same election of 1807, compromised with the established custom of paying voters.

Anyone with a clue about the period knows that such practices were very, very widespread. Candidates either compromised or stayed out of pollitics entirely.

M.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Hanslune

We need Staples petition which I believe will show he was complaining about something other than vote buying.



This is a link to the text of Staple's petition.

I also found this link and this link on another forum. They provide a bit more detail about the background.


It sure gets a little more interesting when we see this portion of this parliamentary history of Beverly:




endorsed by the Grenville ministry at the instigation of his friends Lord and Lady Holland. Alderman Prinsep proceeded to Beverley to canvass, only to discover that Gen. Vyse was not dead and far from amused.8 In 1807, however, Vyse stood down in favour of his son, who professed perfect independence of party. The third man, Maj. Staple whose platform was ‘No Popery’, got nowhere, and two other contenders, Alderman Jarratt and John Wray junior, withdrew their pretensions. Staple petitioned, alleging bribery and treating, to no avail. In 1812 it was reported that he had ‘not a shilling’ to maintain his interest.9


As I had already pointed out to Mr. Creighton in another forum: There was no substance to any allegation of vote buying, all we have is a sore loser called Staple.

And, as usual with Mr. Creighton, his research is less than adequate (in fact, if it was a 3d class history essay he would have gotten an F), because yes there was a case of vote buying and intimidation in Beverly, but that was before Vyse Jr. as he could have read in the previous paragraph of the same link:




Although Gen. Vyse was already a capital burgess of Beverley and had been stationed there for more than two years, there is no evidence of premeditated candidature: one of his supporters, John Arden, informed the freemen that Vyse was stepping into the breach after an attempt had been made to trick them. Gen. Burton felt obliged to deny that he and Wharton, who could certainly ill afford the expense of a contest, were in collusion with Prinsep to cheat the freemen of their loaves and fishes; politically they were in opposite camps and the ministry were not well disposed to Burton. The mayor William Beverley took measures against ‘violence and intimidation’ at the poll and Burton was the disappointed candidate. He complained of Vyse’s ‘illiberal’ conduct in coming forward on such a flimsy basis and published criticism of Wharton’s conduct during the election, which led to a bloodless duel between them. The basis of the quarrel was Wharton’s unwillingness to promote even the appearance of a united front between himself and Burton, to avert a contest.7


I certainly, seeing this kind of shoddy research added to the brain masturbation of the "false" cartouches, feel that buying any of his works is facilitating fraud. The fraud he is committing.

edit on 24-8-2014 by FrageMark because: garbled quotes



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
And attached is a link to Mr Creighton's intellectual honesty in research, to be found on no other place that Graham Hancocks forum:

www.grahamhancock.com...

Enjoy!



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: FrageMark




endorsed by the Grenville ministry at the instigation of his friends Lord and Lady Holland. Alderman Prinsep proceeded to Beverley to canvass, only to discover that Gen. Vyse was not dead and far from amused.8 In 1807, however, Vyse stood down in favour of his son, who professed perfect independence of party. The third man, Maj. Staple whose platform was ‘No Popery’, got nowhere, and two other contenders, Alderman Jarratt and John Wray junior, withdrew their pretensions. Staple petitioned, alleging bribery and treating, to no avail. In 1812 it was reported that he had ‘not a shilling’ to maintain his interest.9


FM: As I had already pointed out to Mr. Creighton in another forum: There was no substance to any allegation of vote buying, all we have is a sore loser called Staple.

And, as usual with Mr. Creighton, his research is less than adequate (in fact, if it was a 3d class history essay he would have gotten an F), because yes there was a case of vote buying and intimidation in Beverly, but that was before Vyse Jr. as he could have read in the previous paragraph of the same link:…


Although Gen. Vyse was already a capital burgess of Beverley and had been stationed there for more than two years, there is no evidence of premeditated candidature: one of his supporters, John Arden, informed the freemen that Vyse was stepping into the breach after an attempt had been made to trick them. Gen. Burton felt obliged to deny that he and Wharton, who could certainly ill afford the expense of a contest, were in collusion with Prinsep to cheat the freemen of their loaves and fishes; politically they were in opposite camps and the ministry were not well disposed to Burton. The mayor William Beverley took measures against ‘violence and intimidation’ at the poll and Burton was the disappointed candidate. He complained of Vyse’s ‘illiberal’ conduct in coming forward on such a flimsy basis and published criticism of Wharton’s conduct during the election, which led to a bloodless duel between them. The basis of the quarrel was Wharton’s unwillingness to promote even the appearance of a united front between himself and Burton, to avert a contest.7


I certainly, seeing this kind of shoddy research added to the brain masturbation of the "false" cartouches, feel that buying any of his works is facilitating fraud. The fraud he is committing.


SC: An “F” for research? Surely you jest? Well, let’s see how YOUR mark comes out.

Wharton, Burton and Vyse (Snr) contested the Beverley election of 1806, NOT the election of 1807. Note the complete absence of Philip Staple in the election of 1806. As there had only been four years since the previous election, presumably the 1806 election must have been a by-election as the full general election occurred the following year in which Vyse (Jnr) stood as a candidate when his father stood down.

The election of 1807 was contested by Vyse (Jnr), Wharton and Staple. Vyse (Jnr) and Wharton were elected as members whereupon Staple launched a petition in Parliament accusing Vyse (and Wharton) of corruption (see your own link above which states “….Staple petitioned, alleging bribery and treating, to no avail …”

Here are the election results of 1806 and 1807:



SC: And here is Staple’s petition to Parliament in full:




SC: Clearly then, the accusation for corruption was made against Vyse Jnr by Mr Staple in the election of 1807 (and NOT, as you claim, in the prior election).

Whilst Staple’s petition failed (Vyse was never actually convicted), with the benefit of history, we now know that he DID in fact bribe 932 of his constituents i.e. 92% of everyone that voted for Vyse was in receipt of a bribe from him.


Staple's consequent petition for bribery was unsuccessful, although Vyse is known to have paid all but 78 of those who voted for him at the rate of £3 8s. for a plumper and £1 14s. for a split vote. (from here)


SC: So, Fragemark, I think there is a big Questionmark (see what I did there) over your own research. If mine is worthy only of an F then we have to consider yours an F-.

SC
edit on 24/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: Fix links.
edit on 24/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)
edit on 24/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: FrageMark
And attached is a link to Mr Creighton's intellectual honesty in research, to be found on no other place that Graham Hancocks forum:

www.grahamhancock.com...

Enjoy!


SC: You think MStower's opinion about the cartouche paint is relevant? Is he a scientist? Is he an art specialist? Does he work for Dulux? Is he qualified to give the definitive answer on the paint-run from that cartouche? Or are you just citing his UNQUALIFIED OPINION?

But if you are so hung up on the OPINION of MStower, how about this one:


"Not that this lets him [Howard-Vyse] off the hook: it looks like the petition [of Philip Staple] should have succeeded." - Martin Stower (from here)


You see folks, when the typical Egypt-apologist doesn't like a particular piece of evidence and can do little to refute it, they resort to the smear. They resort to playing the man and not the ball.

People want evidence, Fragemark, not silly smears.

SC
edit on 24/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)


(post by FrageMark removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

We seem to have come full circle with respect to fraudulently obtaining votes...back then it was the candidates bribing the electorate, now it's the lobbyists from corporations bribing the candidates.

Charming.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: FrageMark

originally posted by: Scott Creighton


"Not that this lets him [Howard-Vyse] off the hook: it looks like the petition [of Philip Staple] should have

People want evidence, Fragemark, not silly smears.

SC



Quite so Mr. Creighton, Sir, quite so.

So, when are you going to deliver instead of pointing to half truths (by suppressing evidence you should have if you actually are privy to the matters you lecture about), brain masturbation, scratched out drawings in journals (with corresponding written annotations, which have been cut out in your "evidence") and alleged emails with Graham Hancock that nobody seems to recall as you present them?


SC: What in the world are you babbling about now? I have to give your comment here another F-.


FM: It is about time that instead of cheeky remarks you put something on the table.


SC: "Cheeky remarks"? Hmm... let's see here now. Who was the one embarking on a little smear campaign (see your previous post and your remark below). That would, in fact, be YOU, wouldn't it.


FM: Or are we to suppose that the only fraud around here is you?


SC: You just can't handle the evidence, can you?


FM: Edit: And as to "unqualified opinions:. the copy of the Vyse journal page with your "evidence" on the Hancock page is not an opinion, it is a fact... and contradicts your opinion


SC: What "Hancock page" are you referring to? The only Hancock page you have cited here is this one from a certain MStower and has no images of any pages from Vyse's private journal that I can see. You are mistaken--again. But why should I expect anything else from an F- student?

If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, at least try and get your facts straight. You have wasted enough of my time with your factually incorrect bluster.

SC
edit on 24/8/2014 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)


(post by FrageMark removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: FrageMark

SC: Your post is nothing more than an incoherent rant intent only at smear and derailment of the thread because you have nothing to refute the evidence I present here:

The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 1
The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 2
The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 3

Evidence cited: Vyse's private journal.
Evidence cited: Hill's facsimile drawings.
Evidence cited: The Khufu cartouche in Campbell's Chamber.

The Great Pyramid Hoax - Part 4 will be presented in due course. This will present my final piece of evidence (also from Vyse's private journal) where Vyse notes his instruction to his assistants to place hieroglyphs inside the Great Pyramid.

It is this evidence that you are having a problem with and which you should be dealing with.

SC





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join