Please welcome our newest Conspiracy "Pro," Scott Creighton

Very worm greetings for researcher like Scott.
I'm familiar with some of his research from the web and had some questions then but haven't get him to answer some.
Now, thankz to ATS board I've got opportunity to know first hand information about above as well as below Giza mysteries ...

Cheers man

reply to post by Triad979

---

Hello Triad979 and Everyone,

Once again may I take this opportunity to thank you all for your warm welcome and kind words. I am happy that some of you are already aware of some of my work - there is much more to come.

Just to let you know that things may seem a little quiet from me at the moment but trust me - I am working very very hard to put together a presentation of my work which I will be placing here on ATS very very soon.

Keep tuned.

Very best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Welcome to the boards Scott.

It's good to see a fellow Scot here and a Glasgow boy no less.!!

Looking forward to reading your posts, the pyamids are fascinating and i cant wait to hear your input.

Enjoy your time here at ATS.

Scott, how about posting your CV? Credentials would help those of us who are diehard skeptics.

reply to post by 123143

---

Hello 123143,



SC: Not sure how my CV will help you? Certainly I am well qualified in a number of fields but I don't really see how this could or, indeed, should relate to peer discourse?

In my experience citing one's professional qualifications has a very negative effect on a discussion, and particularly so when the discussion is of a somewhat controversial nature. What can happen is that those who feel themselves better qualified do not engage in the discussion, preferring to keep a 'dignified distance' from the front line. And then you have those who do not feel qualified enough who are perhaps intimidated by one's qualifications and end up keeping their very valid points to themselves.

Again, in my experience citing one's qualifications is simply a barrier to proper discourse and this is not what proper discourse should be about. If I have something to say that is important and wish to discuss this with others then the last thing I would wish to do is to place barriers in the way of such discussions. Intellectual snobbery, either actively or passively, is not something I would ever subscribe to.

Hope this answers your question.

Best wishes,

SC

Welcome!

Have a nice stay!

Without the weight of educational and/or research credentials you are, forgive me, just another guy off the street who happens to write fairly coherently.

Do you have a degree of some kind?

123143

reply to post by 123143

---

Hello 123143,



SC: I have already answered your question in my reply above.

Best wishes,

SC

Scott

Whats your take on this....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hello, greetings, and welcome. Although I am one of the denser members here, I anticipate learning much from your participation.

Hello Scott, a be-lated Welcome to you. I sure hope to see more posts discussing your Giza beliefs.

I was wondering what it is that makes you believe that the AEs didn't know enough about mathematics and astronomy for them to be able to encode information into their pyramid groundplan? With all the deciphered hieroglyphics they etched it would seem that the AEs knew, learned and understood quite a bit or is it your belief that they were given "information" by a higher entity like Extraterrestrials but never really understood it, yet were able to apply it in their designs? Also, if the AEs were unaware of such an encoding placed into the groundplan then do you think that this information was then never meant to be discovered by man later on and now that it has been what do you think it can teach us? A star map of some sort or information for ETs only?

Thanks for presenting us with fascinating thoughts.
Bzzzzzzz

reply to post by BuzzingOn

---

Hello BuzzingOn,



SC: Thank you - much appreciated.



SC: Firstly, the prevailing view from 'orthodox' Egytpology tells us that there was unequiviocally, categorically NO OVERALL PLAN for the arrangement of the monuments at Giza. We are told that each structure was considered in isolation and that the only relationship each pyramid had with anything else was only with what had gone before.

Secondly, there is an ongoing argument as to whether the AEs were aware of the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference. Some Egyptologists believe the AEs did understand this whilst others disagree. What seems quite certain, however, is that even if the AEs did indeed understand such a ratio, they categorically would not have been able to express it (i.e. Pi) as a decimal fraction (3.14) - even though they used a decimal number system!



SC: Extraterrestrials? Absolutely not !!

You will find that the pyramids at Giza are devoid of any such hieroglyphs (with the exception of some workers' graffitti). It is my considered opinion that the structures were intentionally built devoid of any such hieroglyphic inscriptions in order to FORCE future civilisations to look eleswhere for their true meaning i.e. at the very ARRANGEMENT of the structures - as I have done.



SC: No - I believe it is unfortunate that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty who built the pyramids at Giza did not discover the deeper meaning in the groundplan. But this is entitrely understandable since their mathematical and astronomical understanding was ill-equipped to do so. In building the structures at Giza they used a template - a small scale model - that was passed down to them from a much earlier 'Lost Civilisation'.



SC: I have shown my interpretation of what the Giza groundplan means. You can see tis here:

Part 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Part 2
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Part 3
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Part 4
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regards,

SC

Not really.

reply to post by Landis

---

Hello Landis,

SC: Whether I am unqualified, partially qualified or entirely qualified is simply not relevant. One need not be a meteorologist to know which way the winds blows.

This is all I intend saying on this.

Regards,

SC

Yes, your education/training is relevant. It determines how much weight a person may place on what you have to say.

Your continued evasiveness is telling.

reply to post by Landis

---

Hello Landis,



SC: I have explained this above - as you know. I am quite content to let my work speak for itself.

Regards,

SC

Another greeting Scott. From what I've seen so far, your work does speak for itself. After all, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Robert Bauval's background merely in Construction?

It would seem to me that both Scott and Bauval have achieved more of note than the thousands of people worldwide with Egyptology Ph.D's, whether they have such qualifications themselves or not.

Scott, I'm interested in your work. Mark Allin suggested we talk. So as not to place my email address on a forum board, please contact me via the Disinformation site:

www.disinfo.com...

Thanks,

Gary