It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: mstower

So, not a civil engineer. then. Thanks for confirming. I wonder why you found it so hard to say this, last time you were asked.

Personally, having put in the odd router and switch myself, I’ve always considered “network engineer” to be BS. My father was a real engineer, so I have some standards in these matters.

M.

I worked as a mechanical and environmental engineer for twenty years myself.

The work I did to get there, and the things I did in my jobs, make me a little touchy on the subject as well.

Harte

It’s like someone saying “Let me through, I’m a doctor!” whose doctorate turns out to be in French Literature.

For most of us, most of the time, a doctor is prototypically a medical doctor. Prototypicality (linguistics jargon): there are flightless birds, but a prototypical bird flies.

If someone claims, without qualification, to be an engineer, most of us will understand this as a claim to be a mechanical, structural or civil engineer.

M.




posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: mstower

Or he drives a train.

Harte



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
As for Sitchin--as far as I know, he was the first to publicly charge Vyse with perpetrating a fraud although we now know that others had privately done so.

Care to name them? Seeing as how “we” “know” this and it’s not just some dodgy speculation or forced reading on your part.

Hint: Philip Staple’s Parliamentary Petition of 1807 doesn’t count.


originally posted by: Scott Creighton
Sitchin's evidence, however, was severely lacking and served only to muddy the waters.

Translation: Sitchin set out in detail the conclusions you’ve bent over backwards to reach.


originally posted by: Scott Creighton
My own research presents a whole raft of new evidence that prosecutes the case against Vyse much more successfully, imo. Some of this evdence is presented in my last book, 'The Secret Chamber of Osiris' (Bear & Co., Dec 2014) . . .

Whatever floats your boat, Creighton — or leaky raft, in this case.

Would this evidence include (ahem) Vyse’s instruction to Raven and Hill?

Have you and your pipers and your fiddlers three worked out what it really is yet?


originally posted by: Scott Creighton
. . . but all of the evidence, including the evidence showing that the markings in all other chambers are likely 19th century fabrications, will be presented in my forthcoming book, 'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co, Dec 2016).

. . . and in 2017, you’ll be telling us the same: the evidence will be in your next book, et cetera ad infinitum.

M.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Would you trust him to drive a train?

M.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: mstower


If someone claims, without qualification, to be an engineer, most of us will understand this as a claim to be a mechanical, structural or civil engineer.


If you are trying to insinuate, Stower, that I am not appropriately qualified as an engineer in my field or that my engineering credentials do not support what I say then I have a proposal for you. Call me a liar and we'll test it in court. Then you'll see just how much of a damned buffoon you really are.

Go on, I dare you.

SC



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: mstower
a reply to: Harte

Would you trust him to drive a train?

M.


I was talking about your "someone," not Scott.

I assume a train is reasonably easy to drive, though I've never looked into it or driven one.

Harte



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: mstower


If someone claims, without qualification, to be an engineer, most of us will understand this as a claim to be a mechanical, structural or civil engineer.


If you are trying to insinuate, Stower, that I am not appropriately qualified as an engineer in my field or that my engineering credentials do not support what I say then I have a proposal for you. Call me a liar and we'll test it in court. Then you'll see just how much of a damned buffoon you really are.

Go on, I dare you.

SC

Which field would that be, Creighton?

I’ll remind you that you’ve created this situation, by claiming (or allowing your publicists to claim), without qualification, that you are an engineer — and then going all shy, when asked quite reasonably (and not by me, remember?) what kind of engineer.

I’ll remind you also of the accusations you’ve thrown at me, on the ludicrous grounds of my “allowing” an erroneous statement by someone else (Frank Dörnenburg) to stand uncorrected.

Well, Creighton, you’ve given (or allowed to be given) the impression that you are (or may be) a mechanical, structural or civil engineer.

So, tell us, are you any of these things?

M.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mstower



Which field would that be, Creighton?


SC: That has been explained already in this thread, Stower. Do keep up.


I’ll remind you that you’ve created this situation, by claiming (or allowing your publicists to claim), without qualification, that you are an engineer — and then going all shy, when asked quite reasonably (and not by me, remember?) what kind of engineer.


SC: No--this situation is created by unscrupulous pond life such as yourself who scrabble around the dirt looking for any kind of mud to throw because they have nothing else--individuals such as yourself who like to play the man and not the ball. And don't give me your rubbish now--those individuals you mention were questioning whether I was an engineer at all and NOT "which kind of engineer". They were inferring that I was somehow lying about being an engineer which, of course, I was not. So stop trying to shift the goalposts now. My book bio states I am an engineer and that is factually correct and that is all that anyone needs to know as far as I am concerned. If you don't like that description then you're just going to have to get over it.


I’ll remind you also of the accusations you’ve thrown at me, on the ludicrous grounds of my “allowing” an erroneous statement by someone else (Frank Dörnenburg) to stand uncorrected.


SC: Those weren't accusations--those were actual facts. You gave Frank Doernenburg a copy of the full page of Vyse's 16th June 1837 private journal entry. Doernenburg cropped it, leaving only the bottom left section of that page and omitting highly pertinent information contained on the remainder of that page. The section he cropped created a false impression of what Vyse was writing but when one is shown the rest of the page then another entirely different narrative becomes apparent. This partial page of Doernenburg's was discussed (on a different matter) on GHMB and you were highly involved in those discussions. I believe it ran on for many hundreds of posts all told. And NOT ONCE in any of those posts did you crack a light as to the content of the rest of that 16th June page which you knew of and had in your possession. Thereby you allowed Doernenburg's interpretation of that small section of the page to remain. Had you in those GHMB discussions revealed the rest of that page then everyone in that thread would have seen that there was an alternative narrative to understanding what that page of Vyse's was all about. But you sat on your hands and said NOTHING. The truth of the matter only came out after I obtained copies of the full page myself from the Vyse archive in Aylesbury.

Why did you not show the rest of that page which you had in your possession, Stower? Why did you keep it under wraps when the cropped section was being discussed endlessly? Why did you allow Doernenburg's interpretation of that one small section of the page to prevail?

Because it suited your orthodox agenda to do so, THAT is why.


Well, Creighton, you’ve given (or allowed to be given) the impression that you are (or may be) a mechanical, structural or civil engineer.

So, tell us, are you any of these things?


SC: That you read into my book bio more than is actually written there is YOUR problem. Everything said there is factually correct unless you want to call me a liar, Stower. And, once again, I dare you to.

SC
edit on 26/7/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: mstower
a reply to: Harte

Would you trust him to drive a train?

M.


I was talking about your "someone," not Scott.

I assume a train is reasonably easy to drive, though I've never looked into it or driven one.

Harte

Your point is precise.

I believe trains are relatively easy to drive — they’ve been made so — but the job remains a responsible and safety-critical one and on these grounds I would disqualify Scott. Look how badly he responds, even to the moderate stress of having his pretentions questioned.

M.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mstower


I believe trains are relatively easy to drive — they’ve been made so — but the job remains a responsible and safety-critical one and on these grounds I would disqualify Scott. Look how badly he responds, even to the moderate stress of having his pretentions questioned.


SC: You just keep telling yourself that, Stower. I'm sure you'll convince one or two and, perhaps, even yourself. But the truth is, once again you have been called to back up your false claims and they have backfired spectacularly on you.

Now, see yon silver plate in front of your feet? Bend down, pick it up and take it away--for it has your earse on it. And mind the swing of the door on your rear-end as you leave the room.

SC
edit on 26/7/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: mstower



Which field would that be, Creighton?


SC: That has been explained already in this thread, Stower. Do keep up.


I’ll remind you that you’ve created this situation, by claiming (or allowing your publicists to claim), without qualification, that you are an engineer — and then going all shy, when asked quite reasonably (and not by me, remember?) what kind of engineer.


SC: No--this situation is created by unscrupulous pond life such as yourself who scrabble around the dirt looking for any kind of mud to throw because they have nothing else--individuals such as yourself who like to play the man and not the ball. And don't give me your rubbish now--those individuals you mention were questioning whether I was an engineer at all and NOT "which kind of engineer". They were inferring that I was somehow lying about being an engineer which, of course, I was not. So stop trying to shift the goalposts now. My book bio states I am an engineer and that is factually correct and that is all that anyone needs to know as far as I am concerned. If you don't like that description then you're just going to have to get over it.


I’ll remind you also of the accusations you’ve thrown at me, on the ludicrous grounds of my “allowing” an erroneous statement by someone else (Frank Dörnenburg) to stand uncorrected.


SC: Those weren't accusations--those were actual facts. You gave Frank Doernenburg a copy of the full page of Vyse's 16th June 1837 private journal entry. Doernenburg cropped it, leaving only the bottom left section of that page and omitting highly pertinent information contained on the remainder of that page. The section he cropped created a false impression of what Vyse was writing but when one is shown the rest of the page then another entirely different narrative becomes apparent. This partial page of Doernenburg's was discussed (on a different matter) on GHMB and you were highly involved in those discussions. I believe it ran on for many hundreds of posts all told. And NOT ONCE in any of those posts did you crack a light as to the content of the rest of that 16th June page which you knew of and had in your possession. Thereby you allowed Doernenburg's interpretation of that small section of the page to remain. Had you in those GHMB discussions revealed the rest of that page then everyone in that thread would have seen that there was an alternative narrative to understanding what that page of Vyse's was all about. But you sat on your hands and said NOTHING. The truth of the matter only came out after I obtained copies of the full page myself from the Vyse archive in Aylesbury.

Why did you not show the rest of that page which you had in your possession, Stower? Why did you keep it under wraps when the cropped section was being discussed endlessly? Why did you allow Doernenburg's interpretation of that one small section of the page to prevail?

Because it suited your orthodox agenda, THAT is why.


Well, Creighton, you’ve given (or allowed to be given) the impression that you are (or may be) a mechanical, structural or civil engineer.

So, tell us, are you any of these things?


SC: That you read more into my book bio more than is actually written there is YOUR problem. Everything said there is factually correct unless you want to call me a liar, Stower. And, once again, I dare you to.

SC

You could have condensed this into, “I, Scott Creighton, am a consummate hypocrite, who consistently applies a self-serving double standard.”

The problem here is such as yourself (I need no more dismissive term), recycling for their own ends the forgery rubbish invented by Sitchin. You’re not special, Creighton — you’re just one more in a long, long line.

Do try to remember what you’ve said.

You stated that you are an “ICT Network Engineer”. Someone could go on to this, after qualifying as a mechanical engineer, or a structural engineer, or even a civil engineer. Are you so qualified?

As for your precious bio, I never took it the least bit seriously. I’m talking about how language works, of which, like most areas of knowledge, you plainly haven’t a clue. Likely you don’t even know that you’re weaselling now. Much like the PhD in French Literature, who shouted “Let me through, I’m a doctor!”: everything said there is factually correct, so how could we object?

Funny how I must stick to the letter of what you’ve written, while you feel free to accuse me of “insinuating” — scarcely consistent theoretically, but your relevant cluelessness has already been noted; I refer you also to the point about hypocrisy, above.

Now, by all means, return to you fantasies of how I’m running Morten, Frank Dörnenburg, The Internet . . .

M.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Serious alternative researcher Scott Creighton wrote:


originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: mstower
Now, see yon silver plate in front of your feet? Bend down, pick it up and take it away--for it has your earse on it. And mind the swing of the door on your rear-end as you leave the room.

SC

See what I mean?

M.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: mstower
Serious alternative researcher Scott Creighton wrote:


originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: mstower
Now, see yon silver plate in front of your feet? Bend down, pick it up and take it away--for it has your earse on it. And mind the swing of the door on your rear-end as you leave the room.

SC

See what I mean?

M.


SC: And thoroughly deserving. And aren't you a wannabe orthodox writer, Stower? Don't you have some pearls of wisdom of your own to unleash upon us in the offing? Shall we now pollute the minds of the ATS readership here still further with some of your own unsavoury rantings over the years, Stower? No--best not go there, eh? Not when you're an up and coming author, eh?

Hypocrite you say? I rather doubt you even know the meaning of the word.

SC
edit on 26/7/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: mstower
Serious alternative researcher Scott Creighton wrote:


originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: mstower
Now, see yon silver plate in front of your feet? Bend down, pick it up and take it away--for it has your earse on it. And mind the swing of the door on your rear-end as you leave the room.

SC

See what I mean?

M.


SC: And thoroughly deserving. And aren't you a wannabe orthodox writer, Stower? Don't you have some pearls of wisdom of your own to unleash upon us in the offing? Shall we now pollute the minds of the ATS readership here still further with some of your own unsavoury rantings over the years, Stower? No--best not go there, eh? Not when you're an up and coming author, eh?

Hypocrite you say? I rather doubt you even know the meaning of the word.

SC

What was it you said?

Ah, yes: “unscrupulous pond life such as yourself who scrabble around the dirt looking for any kind of mud to throw because they have nothing else--individuals such as yourself who like to play the man and not the ball.”

I think that pretty much covers the case.

M.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: mstower

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: mstower
Serious alternative researcher Scott Creighton wrote:


originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: mstower
Now, see yon silver plate in front of your feet? Bend down, pick it up and take it away--for it has your earse on it. And mind the swing of the door on your rear-end as you leave the room.

SC

See what I mean?

M.


SC: And thoroughly deserving. And aren't you a wannabe orthodox writer, Stower? Don't you have some pearls of wisdom of your own to unleash upon us in the offing? Shall we now pollute the minds of the ATS readership here still further with some of your own unsavoury rantings over the years, Stower? No--best not go there, eh? Not when you're an up and coming author, eh?

Hypocrite you say? I rather doubt you even know the meaning of the word.

SC

What was it you said?

Ah, yes: “unscrupulous pond life such as yourself who scrabble around the dirt looking for any kind of mud to throw because they have nothing else--individuals such as yourself who like to play the man and not the ball.”

I think that pretty much covers the case.

M.


SC: What was it you said?

Ah, yes: "See what I mean?"

Now away and behave yourself.

SC
edit on 26/7/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
SC: Those weren't accusations--those were actual facts. You gave Frank Doernenburg a copy of the full page of Vyse's 16th June 1837 private journal entry. Doernenburg cropped it, leaving only the bottom left section of that page and omitting highly pertinent information contained on the remainder of that page. The section he cropped created a false impression of what Vyse was writing but when one is shown the rest of the page then another entirely different narrative becomes apparent. This partial page of Doernenburg's was discussed (on a different matter) on GHMB and you were highly involved in those discussions. I believe it ran on for many hundreds of posts all told. And NOT ONCE in any of those posts did you crack a light as to the content of the rest of that 16th June page which you knew of and had in your possession. Thereby you allowed Doernenburg's interpretation of that small section of the page to remain. Had you in those GHMB discussions revealed the rest of that page then everyone in that thread would have seen that there was an alternative narrative to understanding what that page of Vyse's was all about. But you sat on your hands and said NOTHING. The truth of the matter only came out after I obtained copies of the full page myself from the Vyse archive in Aylesbury.

Let’s have a look at these “actual facts”.

“You gave Frank Doernenburg a copy of the full page of Vyse's 16th June 1837 private journal entry.” Groundless and wrong. I gave Frank Dörnenburg the image he used (not the full page) and I gave him the image in this sense: I shared a few, selected, scans of the pictorial details with a few selected people, via password-protected Web space, on the understanding that they were not to be published. Somewhere down the line, Frank published one of them. This was contrary to my intention and beyond my control. Frank also made an erroneous statement about the location of the journal. In Creighton’s weird world of fantasy, this (double) mistake on Frank’s part obliged me to splurge the results of my ongoing private research onto the Internet.

This has been explained to Creighton at length. Funny how so many of the details are absent from his account.

“NOT ONCE in any of those posts did you crack a light as to the content of the rest of that 16th June page which you knew of and had in your possession.” I posted the best images I had (scans of photocopies, best I could do in 1998). Creighton, we may note, has shown no willingness to put his digital photographs online, as a resource, sans his editorial.

“The truth of the matter only came out after I obtained copies of the full page myself from the Vyse archive in Aylesbury.” What Creighton calls “the truth of the matter” is his imposition of a forgery theme on the material, complete à la mode Sitchin with dodgy drawings, supposedly showing details, but actually misrepresenting them, as first in his article in that journal of record, Atlantis Rising. Funny how his self-lionising fantasy fails to mention this. We may note in passing that, but for my positively leaden hints on this board, Creighton would likely never have gone to Aylesbury.

Assessing what all of this says about Creighton’s honesty is left as an exercise for the reader.

M.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

SC: What was it you said?

Ah, yes: "See what I mean?"

Now away and behave yourself.

SC

The usual signs of “tiredness” are already evident.

Readers are referred to my commentary on Creighton’s Dörnenburg accusations. See what I mean indeed.

M.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: mstower

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
SC: Those weren't accusations--those were actual facts. You gave Frank Doernenburg a copy of the full page of Vyse's 16th June 1837 private journal entry. Doernenburg cropped it, leaving only the bottom left section of that page and omitting highly pertinent information contained on the remainder of that page. The section he cropped created a false impression of what Vyse was writing but when one is shown the rest of the page then another entirely different narrative becomes apparent. This partial page of Doernenburg's was discussed (on a different matter) on GHMB and you were highly involved in those discussions. I believe it ran on for many hundreds of posts all told. And NOT ONCE in any of those posts did you crack a light as to the content of the rest of that 16th June page which you knew of and had in your possession. Thereby you allowed Doernenburg's interpretation of that small section of the page to remain. Had you in those GHMB discussions revealed the rest of that page then everyone in that thread would have seen that there was an alternative narrative to understanding what that page of Vyse's was all about. But you sat on your hands and said NOTHING. The truth of the matter only came out after I obtained copies of the full page myself from the Vyse archive in Aylesbury.

Let’s have a look at these “actual facts”.

“You gave Frank Doernenburg a copy of the full page of Vyse's 16th June 1837 private journal entry.” Groundless and wrong. I gave Frank Dörnenburg the image he used (not the full page) and I gave him the image in this sense: I shared a few, selected, scans of the pictorial details with a few selected people, via password-protected Web space, on the understanding that they were not to be published.


SC: Whatever you want to call it, Stower, you passed a digital copy (a scan) of this page to Frank Dornenburg. That is a fact so it can hardly be "groundless". Frank presented only the bottom left corner of the page which is all you are now saying you passed to Frank. Why did you not pass to Frank the rest of the page that you had which showed the contradictory Khufu cartouche? Why did you keep that highly important information to yourself? Why allow Frank to perpetuate a misleading interpretation of that page snippet which you gave him?



Somewhere down the line, Frank published one of them. This was contrary to my intention and beyond my control. Frank also made an erroneous statement about the location of the journal. In Creighton’s weird world of fantasy, this (double) mistake on Frank’s part obliged me to splurge the results of my ongoing private research onto the Internet.


SC: I'm not interested in why FRANK published--I'm interested to know why YOU gave him only what you did; why you didn't give Frank the full picture of what is on that page of Vyse's journal?


This has been explained to Creighton at length. Funny how so many of the details are absent from his account.


SC: Yes, Stower. You keep telling us you gave Frank material and he published it without your permission. That's NOT what is being questioned. What I want to know is why you gave Frank only that small bottom-left section of the page from Vyse's private journal and not the other relevant material from that page that you also had? Why were you so selective in the information from this page to give to Frank Dornenburg?


“NOT ONCE in any of those posts did you crack a light as to the content of the rest of that 16th June page which you knew of and had in your possession.” I posted the best images I had (scans of photocopies, best I could do in 1998).


SC: No--that's a lie, Stower. You had an image of the right-hand side of that page which showed the other Khufu cartouche; you know the Campbell's Chamber Khufu cartouche on that page that contradicts the other drawing of the Campbell's Chamber cartocuhe on that page. You had ALL of that but, from what you say above, gave only a small section of the page to Dornenburg. WHY?


Creighton, we may note, has shown no willingness to put his digital photographs online, as a resource, sans his editorial.


SC: And Stower, we may note, talks BS as per usual. From over a year ago: Great Pyramid Hoax. Download and open the Powerpoint Presentation and you will find the relevant FULL page from Vyse's 16th June entry, showing the ENTIRE page (not just the bottom half) and showing the contradictory cartouche you failed to send to Frank D.


“The truth of the matter only came out after I obtained copies of the full page myself from the Vyse archive in Aylesbury.” What Creighton calls “the truth of the matter” is his imposition of a forgery theme on the material, complete à la mode Sitchin with dodgy drawings, supposedly showing details, but actually misrepresenting them, as first in his article in that journal of record, Atlantis Rising.


SC: Show the readers here at ATS how I have misrepresented drawings, Stower, and I will show you precisely how and why you are talking even more BS.


Funny how his self-lionising fantasy fails to mention this. We may note in passing that, but for my positively leaden hints on this board, Creighton would likely never have gone to Aylesbury.


SC: Funny how your mouth really gets you into a lot of bother.


Assessing what all of this says about Creighton’s honesty is left as an exercise for the reader.


SC: "Honesty" you say--like you were honest in giving Frank D. ALL the pertinent information from that page of Vyse's private journal which Frank subsequently shared (admittedly without your permission) and for which you did NOTHING to correct his misleading narrative? That kind of honesty?

Yes--I am sure the reader will be more than able to reach their own conclusion on that little deception, Stower.

SC
edit on 26/7/2015 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Your formatting’s all over the place, Creighton — much like your “reasoning” and the shattered fragments of what may once have been your honesty.

All of this based on the bonkers assumption that “really” I share your interpretation of the material. I don’t. I regard your “interpretation” as mendacious drivel.

Creighton’s war with truth, in word and image:

[grahamhancock.com]

[grahamhancock.com]

[grahamhancock.com]

[grahamhancock.com]

[grahamhancock.com]

[grahamhancock.com]

We see inter alia that your claim on this board, that I withheld information in the course of this discussion on a certain page, the page shown, is a barefaced lie.

Your presumptuous commentary on things you know nothing about is left as an exercise for the reader.

M.
edit on 26-7-2015 by mstower because: a duplicate link.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Sorted out the formatting have you, Creighton? You should find better things to do.

Still trying to make something of the Dörnenburg thing is desperate. You weren’t there. You don’t know.

M.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join