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.

 

What constitutes an advanced civilization?

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Howdy Scott

SC: Now this REALLY IS a fantasy - since when were you appointed to speak on behalf of "...the rest of us..."?

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...

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. Fantasy applies to your situation as you will listen to nothing but your own desire to be right.

You really have to do much better than this.

Hans: No Scott you need to do much better, 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




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 


I would say in order for a civilization to be advanced it must contain life capable of conscious and intelligent thought. My .02



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hello Hans,


Hans: Please list the organizations and scientists who support your position. You’ve been asked this before and always you don’t answer.


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.


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: Well you said it yourself - it isn't "one man", is it?


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.


SC: Well, Hans, since you seem so sure about that, show me and this Board the 'killer blows' to my theories (outlined below) from these Boards. Let's see the KILLER BLOWS.


Hans: Fantasy applies to your situation as you will listen to nothing but your own desire to be right.


SC: Alas, Hans, irrespective of one's personal desires, in any debate, only the EVIDENCE will ultimately allow us to determine who is right and who is wrong.

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.

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.


SC: You really have to do much better than this.

Hans: No Scott you need to do much better,


SC: I am happy with what I have presented. You have to do much better in debunking it. You have thus far singularly failed to do so and can only point to other sites where you THINK my research has been debunked which, of course, it hasn't. If you think it has then that has to be the biggest fantasy of all. Good luck in finding the 'killer blows' - you'll need it.


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.


SC: Keep with the program, Hans. You're beginning to sound hysterical.


Hans:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

By Sir Winston Churchill


SC:


"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."

- Winston Churchill


Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 8/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Howdy Scott

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: HILARIOUS. 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. Yours ideas don’t work-and since you refuse to gather more evidence what is the point of going over the same material again? 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.

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.

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.

SC: I am happy with what I have presented.

Hans: Of course you are Scott and the fact that it is unaccepted is completely unimportant to you, so much so is that you sit on this website saying the same things over and over again. 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


Added later:

Scott tell us again what you think the reason were for the scientific communities rejections of your ideas

[edit on 8/9/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,


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: 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.


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: 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.


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: HILARIOUS.


SC: Hilarious? I don’t hear anyone laughing? Or perhaps it is simply that hysterical side of you rearing its head again.


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.


SC: Ever see Twelve Angry Men? Never give up – I’m sure someone really famous once said that.


Hans: Yours ideas don’t work…


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: Killer blows? How about knowing acceptance-that sir escapes you.


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?


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: 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.


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: Hans – The Giza structures DO conform to a plan - this IS unequivocal. I have demonstrated this numerous times now – the dimensions and placements of the Gizamids conform to the asterism of Orion’s Belt. The real QUESTION is whether the plan demonstrated was indeed intentional or whether it is simply the result of some remarkable happenstance.


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.


SC: Once again – the arrangement of the Queens pyramids DO correspond to the alignment of the belt star culminations. The real QUESTION is whether this was intended or not or if we are happy to consider this connection with Orion’s Belt ALSO some remarkable coincidence?

In my opinion, there are simply too many correlations here with the Giozamids and the Belt stars to even remotely consider this unintended.

SC: I am happy with what I have presented.

Hans: Of course you are Scott and the fact that it is unaccepted …

SC: See above.


No true scientist would make the statement you made above.


SC: Who said I was a scientist?


SC: Keep with the program, Hans. You're beginning to sound hysterical.

Hans: Hysterically correct it would seem.


SC: I really have to disagree.


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



SC: Alas, however, my signature is not actually a quote.


Hans: Scott tell us again what you think the reason were for the scientific communities rejections of your ideas.


SC: Er – isn’t that YOUR job?

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 8/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory


[edit on Tue Sep 8 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
As noted earlier by others the criteria for what consitutes an 'advance' civilization has been changing as our own civilization progresses and as we get a better understanding of our human past and also of the capabilities of other members of the Homo line could do and what Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus can also do.

[edit on 8/9/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Howdy Scott

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?

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, 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 – and may I suggest you lay of the “unequivocal” it makes you sound like a bit desperate. 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,

Quote
________________________________________
To cite, as a passage from some author; to name, repeat, or adduce, as a passage from an author or speaker

You did exactly that Scott from material by Burns, yet in the Scott Universe it isn’t a quote, LOL. 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.

Scott may I suggest again, you need more and better data, if you rest on what you’ve got you’ll get nowhere. I could recommend either; finding Atlantis, finding a repeat of the pattern you say is there somewhere else in Egyptian culture, determine the meaning of the ‘message’ you say was sent or excavate at the ‘point’ and find something non-Egyptian that somehow justified your idea. Barring that you are HMS Java and its late in the day

With respect, Hans



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,


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: Not so, Hans. If that is how you interpreted what I wrote then you have interpreted wrongly.


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: I think my point is made.


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?


SC: Hall of Ma'at?


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.


Source

The above says everything that ever needs to be said about the Hall of Ma'at.


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,


SC: Yes, and most importantly of all - the opening consensus was finally shown to be wrong. But I am sure you got my point.

Continued....



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Continued from previous.....


Hans....based on misinterpretation, bad science and flawed human observations. Remind you of anything?


SC: Well yes – of course. It's as I said previously, if history tells us anything it is that science is a graveyard of erroneous consensus that changes as new discoveries are made. And that is how it should be. But you always get those who will cling like a limpet onto the old dogma, who resist change just for the sake of it and who, ultimately, will be passed by. Remind you of anyone?


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: You're the one here who has claimed that the evidence I present has been debunked so it is up to you to present such counter-evidence. It's a simple request, Hans. Show this Board the killer blows you believe exist. That's all you have to do. If you can't do it, just say so and we'll move on.


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: Give it time, Hans. Afterall, Rome wasn't built in a day and Rome rejected Christianity in the beginning. Time will be the judge of my work – not you or the Hall of Ma'at.


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: Links please?


SC: Hans – The Giza structures DO conform to a plan - this IS unequivocal.

Hans: No they don’t...


SC: Yes they do. You saying they don't won't make the evidence go away.


Hans: ...and may I suggest you lay of the “unequivocal” it makes you sound like a bit desperate.


SC: No, you may not.


Hans: As is your habit of constantly restating your failed ideas ad nauseum.


SC: You keep saying my ideas have “failed” and yet you have yet to demonstrate how they have failed i.e. how they have been debunked. I am still waiting for you to post the killer blows to my work. Present it to the Board. Show us the killer blows to my work, explain precisely HOW they are killer blows to my work and I will withdraw my theories and bow to your superior knowledge. I can't say fairer than that now, can I? Over to you.


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: First you say I DON'T use scientific methodology and NOW you say I do use such. Make your mind up.


SC: Alas, however, my signature is not actually a quote.

Hans: Wrong again Scott,


SC: No – go read Burns' poem. My signature expresses a sentiment NEVER expressed by Burns so it is NOT a Burns quote. Period.


Hans: Your denial of reality is always amusing and reflects in your knowledge of science


SC: Oh dear. Now you're reduced to the ad hominems. You were doing so well too!


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.


SC: What conspiracy? Should I be concerned?


Hans: Scott may I suggest again, you need more and better data, if you rest on what you’ve got you’ll get nowhere.


SC: I am happy with what I am presenting. If it goes nowhere, well, so be it. Somehow though, your very enmity towards my ideas tells me I have little to concern myself with in this regard.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Hello Scott,
I completely disagree with Hans and agree with you. You're 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. Their failure to gain support from anyone at either Hall of Maat or by Hancock is not a debunk at all. It's merely a reinforcement of the 'possibility' that you are on the right track. I'd suggest that by continuing to post those ideas on threads and linking your own site ad infinitum will, by dint of perseverance, convince detractors.

Edited to remove sarcasm...

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Kandinsky]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,

Nice of you to write.


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.


SC: This is not what Hans claims has been debunked. Hans claims that my work (here) demonstrating how Giza conforms to a unified plan based upon the Orion's belt asterism has been debunked. I am asking him to present the killer blows he claims exists that debunks this. I have yet to see anything.

He further claims that my work (here) demonstrating that the ancients understood the 2 precessional culminations of Orion's belt (as depicted in the placement and arrangement of the 2 sets of Queens pyramids) has been debunked. Again, I await him to present the killer blows he claims exist here and on Hall of Ma'at.

Hope this helps clarify.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Howdy Scott

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!





[edit on 9/9/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


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!



Hello Hans,

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.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
we believe were on top of the world/food chain/universe/very cocky nuke heads that wont learn frompast time faults(?)

were not even the first to do everything.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Dear Scott

Your ideas were not accepted and debunked at the Hall of Ma'at.

That you refuse to believe that is your right. It is also my right to so state what happened.

Here is what you wrote




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.


Hans: Incorrect Scott they were unaccepted and debunked at the Hall of Ma'at there is no reason to do them again at ATS




I have asked repeatedly that you present to this Board the debunking and killer blows to my work that you claim exist.


Hans: [yawn] you were at the Hall of Ma'at I believe you know where they are. They are long long threats were your ideas are debated and then not accepted.




Even a few simple links to assist other readers here at ATS to evaluate your claims for themselves would have helped.


Hans: Nope Scott you are just trying to go over the same arguments again, feel free to do itself, something I know you can do....or are you now claiming you were never at the Hall of Ma'at, no discussion took place, your claims were not debunked and unaccepted?




Hans, you have completely failed to present a single shred of such counter-evidence to my work.


Hans: Scott dear...... I'm reporting what is a historical fact. The complete unacceptance of your ideas at the Hall of Ma'at. Period




Let me tell you – this is less than impressive on your part and one must question your deplorable actions.


Hans: Oh how cute you are when you are mad. You won't be mad if you could just find some real evidence and then convince Egyptologists that you are bringer of great wisdom instead of being yet another hapless owner of a failed pyramid idea.




Next time you feel the urge to make such sucrrilous statements,


Hans: Your ideas on Giza were convincing debunked and unaccepted at the Hall of Ma'at. I for one wouldn't think of trying to better their complete and utter debunking of your materials. You should trying reading those threads. You should also try the ideas I presented to you about what you must do to gain creditability - which you ignored.




I think it would serve your interests better to at least have some evidence to back up your allegations.


Hans: Earth to Scott, Earth to Scott go to the Hall of Ma'at and re-read the threads YOU WERE INVOLVED IN. Geessh, LOL




Since you have failed to put up, I trust you will now shut up.


Hans: Nope as stated before I will not re-debate that which was done on the Hall of Ma'at. However I would never be such a boor as to suggest you shut up. I recommend you go back to your sub forum and yet again restate all your great (but debunked) ideas. Perhaps the 104th time you do that they will, become true.

You are such a treat to read Scott. Now that you are communicating so well would this be a good time to ask you about the Narrative?








[edit on 9/9/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,

Once again you fail to respond to a simple request. That is unfortunate for you. My work here is done. This discussion is ended.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Firstly apologies to Aliencarnage for taking this thread so far off topic.

Dear Scott

Your simple request would require me to enter the dreaded ~scottuniverse~ a place where you actually think people want to debate your unproven hypothesis over and over again with the preconditions that.

1. You are unequivocally right
2. Your unproven hypothesis is finished and needs not further research
3. The only option is to agree with you
4. If you disagree see points 1, 2 and 3

Thanks Scott but I'll pass. I actually took the time at work today to read some of the old Ma'at threads you were in.....well I see why you were asked to leave.

Dangit...

So you don't want to explain about the evil conspiracy that is manifested in the narrative then?





[edit on 10/9/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 




Firstly apologies to Aliencarnage for taking this thread so far off topic.


No need for the apology.

I am glad to see that Scott defends his stance without wavering, whether or not his theories have any validity, he stands by them. That kind of faith in ones theories is hard to find.

I have watched the two of you go head to head in many different threads that I have participated, and I have to say, Scott has always stood by his theories.

Since I am not a scientist or archeologist, some of his theories seem to have merit, but that is an uneducated opinion.

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.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   


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.




That is true plus the 750 Ameros I get for each post countering his dangerous world changing ideas which are paid out by the monolithic organization controled by international Archaeological that actually runs the Iluminati and NWO.

More seriously:

Well its about his belief in:

"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

I'm trying to prod him into more research and study instead of stopping dead in the water and insisting he's right. Right now his idea is not only dead its been cut up and made into kebabs.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join