A question on the Jan 2015 book and whether it covers the seven other cartouches?

Hi Scott

Do you discuss the seven other cartouches in the relieving chambers? If not why not?

Thanks

originally posted by: Hanslune
Hi Scott

Do you discuss the seven other cartouches in the relieving chambers? If not why not?

Thanks

Would you post a link with pics? This interests me.

originally posted by: Spruce

originally posted by: Hanslune
Hi Scott

Do you discuss the seven other cartouches in the relieving chambers? If not why not?

Thanks

Would you post a link with pics? This interests me.

Scott has claimed to have done an exhaustive study of the markings in the relieving chamber but for some reason has focused only on two of the cartouches and has not (AFAIK) mentioned the other seven. Hopefully he has images of these 'forgotten' markings.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Spruce

originally posted by: Hanslune
Hi Scott

Do you discuss the seven other cartouches in the relieving chambers? If not why not?

Thanks

Would you post a link with pics? This interests me.

Scott has claimed to have done an exhaustive study of the markings in the relieving chamber...

SC: Define "exhaustive". And show me exactly where I claim to have "...done an exhaustive study of the markings in the relieving chamber..."?

Hey Hans....

maybe you could show for members benefit the exhaustive studies on markings in the relieving chambers done by Egyptologists....they've had over 100yrs to do so....

or is this thread going to be your opinion against Scotts..

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Trying to avoid the question I asked Scott? Tsk, tsk.....so are you saying your investigation was shoddy, incomplete or inept!

Lol

a reply to: tri-lobe-1

It's a question which Scott doesn't seem to want to answer. As a matter of fact let's see how and what he will try and do to avoid answering it......

Let's see we have one avoidance already so we can start the count:

ONE

originally posted by: Hanslune
Hi Scott

Do you discuss the seven other cartouches in the relieving chambers? If not why not?

Thanks

Here's the question you missed pretty simple question it would seem.....

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Trying to avoid the question I asked Scott? Tsk, tsk.....so are you saying your investigation was shoddy, incomplete or inept!

Lol

Hans,

Let us get a couple of things straight here, shall we.

You made a statement where I apparently claim to have "...done an exhaustive study of the markings in the relieving chamber..."? Having made that statement I asked you where I made such a statement.

You avoided answering. And you avoided answering because no such statement had, in fact, ever been made by me. This is nothing but complete fabrication on your part. In other words, Hans--making stuff up; telling porkies.

Instead, you simply reverse the question, now implying that I have barely done any research at all.

Hans, those are the tactics of a juvenile. If you want to have an adult discussion in my Forum then start behaving like an adult.

Now, you also seem to think you have some special right to have the content of my forthcoming book divulged to you in advance of the book's publication date (Dec 2014, not Jan 2015 as you stated in a previous post). I am afraid you may be disappointed to learn that you have no such special rights at all--none. So, if you want to learn of the extent of my latest research you will just have to get in the queue along with everyone else. I am not saying you have to buy the book--you don't. I will, as I normally do, be discussing the book fully here on ATS AFTER its publication and not a moment before. I hope that is now perfectly clear for you.

Now Hans--be careful the swing of the door doesn't smack you on the erse on your way out.

SC

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Trying to avoid the question I asked Scott? Tsk, tsk.....so are you saying your investigation was shoddy, incomplete or inept!

Lol

Hans,

Let us get a couple of things straight here, shall we.

You made a statement where I apparently claim to have "...done an exhaustive study of the markings in the relieving chamber..."? Having made that statement I asked you where I made such a statement.

You avoided answering. And you avoided answering because no such statement had, in fact, ever been made by me. This is nothing but complete fabrication on your part. In other words, Hans--making stuff up; telling porkies.

Instead, you simply reverse the question, now implying that I have barely done any research at all.

Hans, those are the tactics of a juvenile. If you want to have an adult discussion in my Forum then start behaving like an adult.

Now, you also seem to think you have some special right to have the content of my forthcoming book divulged to you in advance of the book's publication date (Dec 2014, not Jan 2015 as you stated in a previous post). I am afraid you may be disappointed to learn that you have no such special rights at all--none. So, if you want to learn of the extent of my latest research you will just have to get in the queue along with everyone else. I am not saying you have to buy the book--you don't. I will, as I normally do, be discussing the book fully here on ATS AFTER its publication and not a moment before. I hope that is now perfectly clear for you.

Now Hans--be careful the swing of the door doesn't smack you on the erse on your way out.

SC

Again Scott you have avoided the question again!

TWO DODGES

Here is the question you are avoiding - again

Do you discuss the seven other cartouches in the relieving chambers? If not why not?

I love how you are trying desperate to create a diversion - but it isn't going to work - we look forward to your third attempt at dodging.

Oh and as you seem to need help answering the question above here is how I would answer it;

1. Dear Hanslune, yes I did it is in chapter 7 page 328-378, with more material in Appendix IV. It is thoroughly covered,and footnoted and will be published in December of 2014.... yep that sure would spill all the beans wouldn't it? lol

2. Dear Hanslune, seven cartouches? Never heard of them, did I miss that in Sitchin's material???

3. Dear Hanslune, I didn't include them as I needed to keep my ideas simple, you must realize I'm writing for people who use to believe in Sumerian aliens and Atlantis, I cannot make it to complex or they might, heavens above, ask me questions.

4. ...ah cartouches? ah they weren't in context where I could use them to support my idea so I ignored them.

Hope that helps?

The first review of Scott Creighton's "The Secret Chamber of Osiris" that was slated for January has landed. No mention was made of any material on cartouches.

www.jasoncolavito.com...

originally posted by: WooSchlepper
The first review of Scott Creighton's "The Secret Chamber of Osiris" that was slated for January has landed. No mention was made of any material on cartouches.

www.jasoncolavito.com...

Hello WooSchlepper,

Yes--my new book has finally hit the bookshelves, a little earlier than the publisher anticipated--which is all good. And yes--there's an entire chapter devoted to the Vyse forgery controversy, inlcudng never-before-seen evidence uncovered from Vyse's private field notes when he was at Giza in 1837.

Regards,

SC

originally posted by: Hanslune
Hi Scott

Do you discuss the seven other cartouches in the relieving chambers? If not why not?

Thanks

I wonder why this question was never answered?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune
Hi Scott

Do you discuss the seven other cartouches in the relieving chambers? If not why not?

Thanks

I wonder why this question was never answered?

Harte

There is considerable evidence that ALL the cartouches (Khnum-Khuf / Khufu) within the various relieving chambers of the Geat Pyramid, were faked by Vyse and his team in 1837. The evidence for all of this is to be presented in my forthcoming book, "Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence" (Bear & Co, 2017).

Regards,

SC

I wonder why the question was never answered.

Harte

a reply to: Hanslune


Am I the only one that finds it ironic (or childish) that Harte and Hanslune are complaining that Scott hasn't answered their question all while they ignore his question as to where he made the statement that he had conducted "exhaustive studies?"

I don't think its an unreasonable request that Scott has made. After all, if you are going to quote someone and ask them to spend their time answering your questions it should be expected that he understands that you are quoting him correctly.

An outsider might come to a quick conclusion that maybe Hanslune has misquoted given the exchange we see here.

Maybe I'm just gullable.

originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: Hanslune


Am I the only one that finds it ironic (or childish) that Harte and Hanslune are complaining that Scott hasn't answered their question all while they ignore his question as to where he made the statement that he had conducted "exhaustive studies?"

Scott has written extensively on the cartouches Hans mentioned.

Scott had a new book coming out when Hans asked the question.

Now, I never said that Scott said anything like he had conducted "exhaustive research." However, given that there isn't really that many examples in the relieving chambers, that is, Scott wouldn't have to spend a decade looking into it, I'd say "exhaustive research" wouldn't be that much of a problem.

So now, why is it that Scott wouldn't answer a simple question concerning whether or not his new book discusses the seven other cartouches? He's written a new book. In the past he's written exhaustively on the two cartouches.

So, the question is not only legitimate, it's innocent as well.

I mean, does that seem like a question that someone that has written ten thousand words about the graffiti in the GP would need to avoid?

What is the problem with the question? Is it the asker? Would Scott answer it if someone else asked it?

It's not as if Hans asked him for his qualifications, you see. Now that question is certainly one that Scott, an internet cafe proprietor, would likely be expected to dodge.

Harte

a reply to: [post=19547148]Harte[/post

Thanks for the reply Harte.

I really don't know why Scott didn't answer the question. It seems that you have a theory as to why he didn't answer- care to share with us why you think he hasn't answered?

originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: [post=19547148]Harte[/post

Thanks for the reply Harte.

I really don't know why Scott didn't answer the question. It seems that you have a theory as to why he didn't answer- care to share with us why you think he hasn't answered?

If I were to hazard a guess, it would be one of these three things:

Amazing as it may sound, Scott didn't know about the other cartouches.

Or

The other cartouches don't support what Scott tries to claim about Vyse, and possibly they even refute Scott's claims.

Or

Scott is afraid Hans is up to something with the question and doesn't want to be shown up.

Obviously, as I said, these are only guesses. I have no idea why Scott wouldn't simply provide an answer to an easy yes or no question.
But I wouldn't be guessing if Scott had answered, would I?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Thank you for that. That is a very good response. I would imagine one of the three could be correct. I would add a fourth and fifth possibility based on my brief exchanges over the past day:

4) Scott refuses to engage further into a juvenile exchange with Hanslune

5) Scott prefers to not reveal material from his most unfinished book prematurely (I believe he basically said as much in his reply)

or maybe he enjoys watching Hanslune waste his time attempting to converse with someone who refuses to respond in a manner that doesn't match his agenda.