Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 7
41
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mr Mask
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Clicked link thinking it would bring me to an online source, ended up downloading your presentation. Had to delete it before reading it. I don't like files slipped to me without warning. Feel a little violated now. Sorry.

MM



That's why you always look at the URL after you scroll you mouse over it. Lesson learned.




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Hooke


Hooke: But you said earlier that he did it for prestige, patronage and privilege. Now you say that we don't know why he did it.


SC: We don’t know why Vyse entered parliament. I offered you some possible reasons which are no different to why most politicians enter parliament, even today. IS that clearer for you?

[snip]


Hooke: He very likely thought that entering Parliament, using methods that had become widely accepted, and helping to maintain the status quo once he was an MP, was the right thing to do.


SC: Who knows but it’s not the point. The point is he was elected to parliament by committing electoral fraud.


Hooke: It was a mechanism used by many other MPs.


SC: Was this “mechanism” illegal in 1807? Yes or No?


Hooke: No - he would have needed to know the right context in which to place it.


SC: These were unofficial markings often described as workers’ graffiti. It didn’t matter what the graffiti said.


”Cartouches in tomb to the W. [west] of first pyramid are different than Suphis [Khufu].”

Hooke: Whatever he wrote, I doubt if it could have been 'different than', which is a present day American usage.


SC: Well why don’t you actually look at the PDF file (here) which contains the text and actually check it yourself. I think you will find it says what I claim it says.


Hooke: He refers several times to Champollion and Rosellini.


SC: He mentions these names in his book which was published in 1840, three years after he returned from Giza. He may well have had access to Rosellini’s 1832 book.


Hooke: So Brewer was definitely at Giza?


SC: Well, we certainly know from Brewer’s obituary that he was indeed in Egypt around the right time. According to the account of his great-grandson, Walter Allen, it seems he was with Vyse at Giza in 1837. I see little reason to doubt Allen’s family record.

SC



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Well I see you still won't except the context of the time and place was different from today's world.

So Scott have you found an example of a politician being convicted on vote buying up to 1808?

Lets say that vote buying was '5' on a scale of naughtiness for today's world (scale 0-10) what would you say it was in 1808?



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
SC: Well, we certainly know from Brewer’s obituary that he was indeed in Egypt around the right time. According to the account of his great-grandson, Walter Allen, it seems he was with Vyse at Giza in 1837. I see little reason to doubt Allen’s family record.


As so often with Creighton, this is an outrageous misrepresentation.

Humphries Brewer’s obituary may be viewed here (PDF):

digitalnewspapers.libraries.psu.edu...

The relevant wording is this:



Humphries Brewer was born in the Parish of Box, Wiltshire, England and died on the 25th day of December last aged 50 years, 9 months and 27 days. The writer of this article is not sufficiently acquainted with the earlier parts of his life to give a correct history of it. Enough however is known of it, to state that he had the advantages of early training—that he was thoroughly educated in all the higher branches of mathematics, and that he was an accomplished geologist, before he came to this country. He had also traveled through Egypt and the Holy Land, and his mind was well stored with an accurate knowledge of the history of that portion of the old world. He emigrated to this country some twenty years ago; since which time he has resided at Blossburg and Fall Brook. . . .


We do not “know” on this basis that Humphries Brewer was in Egypt at all. What we may infer at best is that the unnamed obituarist believed that Brewer had travelled in Egypt and the Holy Land. This same obituarist (we may note) explicitly disavowed close knowledge of Humphries Brewer’s earlier life. (This tells us among other things that the obituarist was not a family member and had no significant input from family members.)

No indication is given of when this is supposed to have happened, so Creighton’s adding “around the right time” is pure BS. There is no basis in the obituary for such a claim re chronology: at best we may place these alleged travels before 1849, when Brewer migrated to America.

There is also this version of the family tradition from 1933 (PDF):

fultonhistory.com... orning%20NY%20Evening%20%20Leader%201933%20%20Mar-Nov%201933%20Grayscale%20-%201724.pdf



. . . Mr. Brewer was educated in England as a civil engineer and for seven years practiced his profession in the Holy Land before coming to America. . . .


if this is the authentic family tradition re Humphries Brewer and the Holy Land (as it very well might be), then the version coming from (the later) Walter M. Allen is just wrong, as Allen has Brewer visiting the Holy Land briefly, not staying there seven years.

Creighton’s not seeing reason to doubt Allen’s “family record” (some notes written by Allen himself) is yet another example of his arbitrary selection of evidence, as reason there clearly is.

M.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

Hooke: No - he would have needed to know the right context in which to place it.


SC: These were unofficial markings often described as workers’ graffiti. It didn’t matter what the graffiti said.


Actually, no, Creigton, all indications are that these markings were entirely official, representing as they did the official system whereby labour was organised. If you haven’t yet grasped such simple basics, why on earth are you pontificating on the topic?

The second sentence, against stiff competition, is the stupidest thing you’ve written to date.


originally posted by: Scott Creighton

”Cartouches in tomb to the W. [west] of first pyramid are different than Suphis [Khufu].”

Hooke: Whatever he wrote, I doubt if it could have been 'different than', which is a present day American usage.


SC: Well why don’t you actually look at the PDF file (here) which contains the text and actually check it yourself. I think you will find it says what I claim it says.


Actually, no, Creighton, I find that it does not say what you claim it says. Hooke is right: “different than” is an Americanism. Vyse would not have written this.

M.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

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


What, like your silly, second-hand smear of Vyse? File this with your silly name-calling.

Sorry to be so untimely in spotting the above piece of consummate hypocrisy. Perhaps now having said this about me you’d like to show your good faith by doing what so far I’ve refrained from asking you to do: stating your qualifications in any field of scientific endeavour whatsoever. Seeing as how you’re so big on scientism but not so obviously hot in science.

Perhaps, while you’re at it, you’d like to explain how my giving an honest opinion is supposed to compromise my credibility, as I doubt I’m the only one puzzled by this.

Thanks regardless for drawing attention to my cogent statement on GHMB.

M.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mstower

Hello mstower

For some reason Scott seems to find your persuasive power and evidence beyond his ability to distort - keep up the good work in challenging his disinformation.





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join