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.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Hans: Please list the organizations and scientists who support your position. You’ve been asked this before and always you don’t answer.
When only one man believes something (however I’m sure if you look hard enough you can find some members of ATS who’ll go along with your ideas) you start to wonder...
SC: You should well understand by now, Hans, that labelling evidence as 'fantasy' won't actually make it 'fantasy' nor will such derisory and empty comments cut it as a viable counter-argument.
Hans: Ah Scott the answers have already been given to you here and at the Hall of Ma’at and you dismissed them.
Hans: Fantasy applies to your situation as you will listen to nothing but your own desire to be right.
SC: You really have to do much better than this.
Hans: No Scott you need to do much better,
Hans: I suggesting finding some real evidence and/or trying to build a consensus in support of your ideas, you know doing science the way its suppose to be done not your way. Which I can categorize as the I-know-I’m-right and-the-rest-of-the-world-is-full-of-fools-who-don’t-recognize-my-genius-so-I-just-keep-repeating-myself-over-and-over-again-while-whining-about-you -being-a-martyr.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
By Sir Winston Churchill
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."
- Winston Churchill
SC: It's not a question of who supports or does not support my theories, Hans. This seems to be more of a concern to you than it does to me. It's about getting the research out there and allowing people to make up their own minds. If people accept that I make a reasonable case then that's fine. If not, that's fine too.
Hans: Thanks for admitting that even you find your evidence to be outside of scientific methodology and your going for cult acceptance.
SC: Well you said it yourself - it isn't "one man", is it?
Hans: You don’t seem to understand the concept that science is consensus based. Just in case you didn't realize it...it is.
SC: Well, Hans, since you seem so sure about that show me and this Board the 'killer blows' from these sites to my theories (outlined below). Let's see the KILLER BLOWS.
Hans: Scott seriously only a 'unusual person' keeps going over the same material over and over again and hopes to come out with a different result.
Hans: Yours ideas don’t work…
Hans: Killer blows? How about knowing acceptance-that sir escapes you.
SC: Alas, Hans, irrespective of one's personal belief, in any debate, it is the EVIDENCE that will ultimately determine who is right and who is wrong.
Hans: Yes and your evidence was not accepted, repeatedly.
SC: I am well satisfied that the evidence I present here demonstrates unequivocally that the structures at Giza (contrary to orthodox opinion) conform to a unified plan, the underlying influence of which are the belt stars of the Orion Constellation.
Hans: The fact that you state your idea is ‘unequivocally’ right immediately identifies you as a fringer and not a scientist, no scientist would present his ideas in such a manner.
SC: Furthermore the evidence I present here demonstrates that the ancients (contrary to orthodox opinion) understood the precessional motion and culminations of the belt stars of the Orion constellation.
Hans: No you didn’t Scott you only seem to think you did – which experts acknowledge this as true-please list them. Again you are just restating that which was rejected before-numerous times.
No true scientist would make the statement you made above.
SC: Keep with the program, Hans. You're beginning to sound hysterical.
Hans: Hysterically correct it would seem.
Hans your quote:The man o' independent mind, is king o' men, for a' that.
It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."
- Winston Churchill
Hans: Scott tell us again what you think the reason were for the scientific communities rejections of your ideas.
SC: Nothing of the sort was admitted. Egyptology is a ‘soft science’, Hans and, as such, often cannot conform to the strict rigours you demand of it.
Hans: Sorry but you did so admit
SC: Of course I understand this. Consensus, however, does not automatically invalidate my work and nor should consensus automatically imply that the consensus is correct. The study of science is a graveyard littered with the corpses of a wrong consensus being supplanted by a new consensus. Such is the nature of science and that is good. Time will be the judge of my theories.
Hans: Yes and the number of ideas that failed and never were accepted is far, far greater than those that later climbed out of the garbage. Being rejected doesn’t added lustre to an idea. Despite what you may believe.
SC: Hilarious? I don’t hear anyone laughing? Or perhaps it is simply that hysterical side of you rearing its head again.
Hans: You don’t read the Hall of Ma’at much do you?
How very, very different you must find things here on GHMB, where the promoters of alternative ideas and explorers of new theories can not be simply bullied off the forum by a crowd of clucking, tutting, sneering cynics in residence. The Hall of Ma’at, that tomb of dead ideas and intellectual cowardice, where the closing of ranks replaces debate and where any argument which challenges the smug preconceptions of the regulars is stamped upon. Where posts are edited, censored, or removed at the merest whiff of any dissent or alternative argument that might hold water, and where the slightest inkling of a fresh and thought-provoking take on the ancient world is enough to bring the moderators in like fussing mother hens to close down the thread.
Yes, how very different you must find GHMB, when you regularly hone your skills on a forum where anyone with an alternative view has to proceed with two hands tied behind their backs while a gang of co-dependent reactionaries lay into them with full editorial backing and who then have the gall to pretend that they are actually freely debating anything or “weighing the evidence”. Why, it was daily entertainment at one point to tune in to that site just to hear the regular thud-thud-thud of Scott Creighton’s threads being shut down by the panicking moderators as quickly as he could start them. At one point they split the entire Ancient History section in two to try to quarantine Scott’s contributions. Such was the fear of new ideas. Such was the loathing for an independent mind. Such was the intolerance of anyone who dared to try to waken those leaden, sleeping, pedestrian brains, some of whom had once dabbled in alternative theory themselves and had their fingers burnt and so took up their new closed mindsets with all the venom of the convert.
Yet when Robert Bauval visits the forum they all roll over to have their bellies tickled by the great man – his fame and book sales overcoming their die hard allegiance to the orthodox view. A most unedifying sight, a most unhealthy environment, and indeed it would all be weirdly funny were there not so many decent and open minded people interested in the alternate history field who wander innocently in to the midst of this self-serving cabal only to get the intellectual equivalent of a mugging.
Yes, tha Hall of Maat. How very different you must find things here. It is not enough here to simply sneer or snipe from the trenches, or s'n-word' about little green men when the argument starts to run away from you. This place is about exploring new ideas. Anyone can stand and defend the orthodox, the status quo, anyone can naysay. It is the easiest thing in the world to dismiss a new theory, to demand incontrovertible proof from the word go, to expect every new truth to be brought on a plate to you, all neatly packaged. But that’s not how the world works, that’s not how progress is made. Sometimes it takes intellectually bravery, sometimes you need to go out on a limb and risk being wrong. These qualities are rare. For every Bauval, Osborne, Hancock or Creighton, there’s a thousand like yourself, clinging like a dog with a bone to the notion facts are only facts when they've finally been accepted by the orthodox majority, as though truth was subject to some kind of democracy based on the twisted practicalities of research funding. And that is what I mean by your “ilk”.
My love of Nicolas Poussin's "Et In Arcadia Ego" connects me to Gary Osborne's work, who references Scott Creighton, who carries on the ideas of Hancock and Bauval. All fascinating stuff. Is it right or wrong, is it all nonsense? I don’t know. But I’m glad there are minds out there pushing the boundaries. You see, this will come as a surprise to you, but we don’t know all there is to know. It’s not all in books yet. It can’t all be subject to peer review because some people do not yet have peers. They just have to get out there and push forward, and follow the truth as they see it to see where it’ll take them. How very different from those who squat on the fetid mound of received wisdom we call orthodoxy, taking pot shots at those who dare to think differently.
SC: Ever see Twelve Angry Men? Never give up – I’m sure someone really famous once said that.
Hans: I guess you saw a different version of the movie I saw. In the version I saw evidence was used to disprove an idea, that the man was guilty,
Hans....based on misinterpretation, bad science and flawed human observations. Remind you of anything?
SC: How? You have already stated it has been debunked here and elsewhere. I am asking you AGAIN to present the killer blows to my theories. Let’s see it? Put up or shut up.
Hans: Again Scott you are trying the old fringe technique of trying, yet again to run the same data thru ---hoping, nay praying that the results will be different....they won’t
SC: What is accepted today becomes unacceptable tomorrow – and vice-versa. Now – let’s see those killer blows to my evidence? Let’s have it?
Hans: Non acceptance pretty much says it, please explain how non-acceptance is a positive thing.
SC: Not being ‘accepted’ is NOT the same as being fatally flawed or debunked, now is it? Let’s see the debunking job you claim was made of my evidence. Let’s see the killer blows, Hans.
Hans: Reread the pages at the Hall of Ma’at where your ideas were taken apart
SC: Hans – The Giza structures DO conform to a plan - this IS unequivocal.
Hans: No they don’t...
Hans: ...and may I suggest you lay of the “unequivocal” it makes you sound like a bit desperate.
Hans: As is your habit of constantly restating your failed ideas ad nauseum.
SC: Who said I was a scientist?
Hans: You certainly aren’t a very good one but you use the methodology (well partially)and that makes you a scientist.
SC: Alas, however, my signature is not actually a quote.
Hans: Wrong again Scott,
Hans: Your denial of reality is always amusing and reflects in your knowledge of science
SC: Er – isn’t that YOUR job?
Hans: Just a friendly straight line to allow you to rant against the scientific conspiracy allied against you.
Hans: Scott may I suggest again, you need more and better data, if you rest on what you’ve got you’ll get nowhere.
Kandinsky: [sic]Your ideas that the 'Gizamids' are a message in a bottle from a lost civilization/aliens/from the sky/God/gods have not been 'debunked.' Not at all.
I will not satisfied your fringe desire to go over and over the same material with you in the deep hope that you'll get a positive response.
You won't waste my time in that manner.
But hey feel free to post yet again the same failed arguments. Maybe the 103rd time will be a charm. Oh wait you have a whole sub forum for just that task.
I wish you well in your Sisyphean task
Kandinsky - funny!
Here is the situation.
You claimed on this Board that my theories relating to a unified plan at Giza and precessional knowledge at Giza had been debunked here on ATS and also on the Hall of Ma’at Forum.
I have asked repeatedly that you present to this Board the debunking and killer blows to my work that you claim exist.
Even a few simple links to assist other readers here at ATS to evaluate your claims for themselves would have helped.
Hans, you have completely failed to present a single shred of such counter-evidence to my work.
Let me tell you – this is less than impressive on your part and one must question your deplorable actions.
Next time you feel the urge to make such sucrrilous statements,
I think it would serve your interests better to at least have some evidence to back up your allegations.
Since you have failed to put up, I trust you will now shut up.
Firstly apologies to Aliencarnage for taking this thread so far off topic.
This is the reason I think you are so strongly opposing his views in threads so that the uneducated in these things are not swayed by unproven theories.