It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We see here your usual method: come up with some arbitrary story of what people should have done (which would be presumptuous even if you knew the circumstances) and then fault them for not having done it. Why?
originally posted by: mstower
“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the pictorial details with a few selected people, via password-protected Web space, on the understanding that they were not to be published.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.
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
SC: It is perfectly clear why you witheld the remainder of Vyse's 16th June 1837 page--because you understood its devastating implications. . . .
If we may believe Creighton’s own account of his “brilliant discovery”, it wasn’t even him came up with it. It was his wife.
"Hour after hour we had been turning and photographing the pages [of Vyse's private journal], seeing nothing before us but an endless, meaningless scrawl. As Louise [my wife] turned one of the pages for me to photograph, I noticed that it had some hieroglyphics on it. Very few pages had such content, and so it was easy to catch the eye. But this wasn't just any old hieroglyphic marking that Vyse had written, it was the cartouche of Khufu... resting the camera on the table, I took a closer look at the cartouche Vyse had drawn and pointed something out to Louise. We both then looked at each other in stunned silence as the realization and enormity of what we were seeing sank in--for before us was compelling evidence that the cartouche of Khufu, which Vyse claimed to have discovered within the Great Pyramid, must, in fact, have been forged by him..." - Creighton, The Secret Chamber of Osiris, (Bear & Co., Dec 2014), p.116-117
originally posted by: Hanslune
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!
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.
Again Scott you have avoided the question again!
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?
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?"
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: Harte
A minimum of 20 mg of organic material is required by most labs.
Please note that this doesn't mean 20 mg of ocher paint (which is not organic.)
It could be that the paint is oil-based, likely plant oil or animal fat if that's true, which would give a decent reading. It's just as likely that it's water based though, which would provide no information at all.
But imagine how much paint would have to be sampled.
Also consider that the paint itself has been sitting on and soaking into stone that contains a very large amount of carbon itself, which could easily skew the results.
Also, it would be preferable to get a sample from a site where hundreds or thousands of people with torches and lamps and candles have not come in and deposited new carbon on all the walls.
Unless a lab customer explicitly directs otherwise, no lab is going to give out results to anyone but the customer.
Hence, you have to believe the crooks that stole the paint samples.