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.
SC: I guess this is a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Unbelieveable!
See Aldred, “The Egyptians” 3rd Edition, p.32.
And when are you going to post a link to the Hall of Ma'at where you claim my work received killer blows.
I have lost count now of the number of times you have been asked to present this.
You haven't because ypou CAN'T.
Period. So, if you can't back up what you are saying, then don't even bother saying it.
Your hypocrisy here is surpassed only by your complete lack of credibility.
Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by Scott Creighton
Does your last response in this thread mean you will not be providing a link to the translation of the Edfu building text?
If so, that is too bad, I was looking forward to seeing it.
Enjoy.
SC: I guess this is a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Unbelieveable!
Hans: Yes it is unbelievable that you never post the actual inscriptions.
Hans: I guess the use of scanner is not within your skill set
Hans: Oh so you have no online translation, so I guess you are the only source for determing what it says.
Hans: Odd you haven't scanned such a critical piece of information. Why is that~?
SC: And when are you going to post a link to the Hall of Ma'at where you claim my work received killer blows.
Hans: I never claimed that- you made it up. What I said was your idea was examined and not accepted.
Hans: Reread the pages at the Hall of Ma’at where your ideas were taken apart. (emphasis mine).
Hans: Your ideas were not accepted and debunked at the Hall of Ma'at. (emphasis mine).
Hans: Incorrect Scott they were unaccepted and debunked at the Hall of Ma'at there is no reason to do them again at ATS
Hans: …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: Your ideas on Giza were convincing[ly] debunked and unaccepted at the Hall of Ma'at….
Debunked’ implies my theories have been PROVED to be false through the existence of a fatal flaw.
You claim (see above) that my theories were “taken apart” and "convincingly debunked" at the Hall of Ma’at. Well I categorically refute that such occurred.
Yes my work was discussed and yes they disagreed with what I presented. Disagreement is not equivalent to debunking.
So, unless you can post a link on this board directing readers here to the pertinent HoM post(s) that demonstrate my theories having been “taken apart” and "convincingly debunked", I doubt very much that many on this board will give your allegations the slightest bit of credence.
And let's be clear here. No one is asking you to re-enter a debate about my theories, Hans – only that you place the relevant links here on ATS where you allege the Hall of Ma’at took my theories apart. If such exist it surely can’t take more than a few minutes of your time to post them here on ATS. Let’s have the links, Hans – the links that show clearly how my theories were “taken apart”.
You may not actually realise this, Hans, but you owe it to the readership of this board to substantiate your claims.
You have a responsibility here. To say something and refuse to back it up is not proper debate and makes a mockery of what ATS stands for.
Refusing to present your evidence is to treat the users of this board with contempt and that is totally unacceptable.
Now, if you wish to keep any semblance of integrity you would present the evidence that substantiates your claim and shows how my theories of a unified Giza plan based upon Orion's Belt and precessional knowledge at Giza based upon Orion's Belt were “taken apart”.
Let’s see it, Hans. The Board is waiting.
SC: Debunked’ implies my theories have been PROVED to be false through the existence of a fatal flaw.
Hans: Yes and they [Hall of Ma'at] didn’t accept your idea.
Hans: Now THEY debunked you I didn’t.
Hans: But I agreed with their non-acceptance.
Hans: I did note that I put up what I thought were the fatal flaws, on this board – which you ignored, why not answer those to start, why not start there? Hmmmm?
SC: You claim (see above) that my theories were “taken apart” and "convincingly debunked" at the Hall of Ma’at. Well I categorically refute that such occurred.
Hans: Its not a claim its a fact.
Hans: That’s nice but the reality is different.
iHans: If it didn’t occur please list the people who have accepted your idea. If it had been accepted you could do so- you cannot.
SC: Yes my work was discussed and yes they disagreed with what I presented. Disagreement is not equivalent to debunking.
Hans: In your mind yes in others no.
SC: So, unless you can post a link on this board directing readers here to the pertinent HoM post(s) that demonstrate my theories having been “taken apart” and "convincingly debunked", I doubt very much that many on this board will give your allegations the slightest bit of credence.
Hans: You can, at any time post the links to the hundreds of posts in multiple threads that you know the location of.
Hans: All you want to do is go over the same stuff again...
Hans – feel free to post the links...
Hans: ….and do a post-debunking counter-debunking...
SC: And let's be clear here. No one is asking you to re-enter a debate about my theories, Hans – only that you place the relevant links here on ATS where you allege the Hall of Ma’at took my theories apart. If such exist it surely can’t take more than a few minutes of your time to post them here on ATS. Let’s have the links, Hans – the links that show clearly how my theories were “taken apart”.
Hans: Feel free to post them at any time, you know where they are Scott. And lets be clear here Scott.
Hans: So please keep up the disruption of other threads.
You may not actually realise this, Hans, but you owe it to the readership of this board to substantiate your claims.
Hans: No I don’t [sic]you're the only person involved in this discussion.
SC: You have a responsibility here. To say something and refuse to back it up is not proper debate and makes a mockery of what ATS stands for.
Hans: I have backed it up ...
Hans: ….but you just want to go over and over on it.
Hans: If your ideas were NOT debunked and not accepted list the people who accepted them?
Hans: If they [HoM] disagreed why did they disagree - because they [HoM] thought they were correct or they thought they were wrong?
SC: Refusing to present your evidence is to treat the users of this board with contempt and that is totally unacceptable.
Hans: Melodrama ….
Hans....doesn’t change the fact that your ideas were rejected, debunked and NOT accepted at the Hall of Ma’at.
Hans: Why don't you stop derailing others threads?
Hans: My actions are acceptable and I will continue to act in this way towards your odd behavior.
SC: Now, if you wish to keep any semblance of integrity you would present the evidence that substantiates your claim and shows how my theories of a unified Giza plan based upon Orion's Belt and precessional knowledge at Giza based upon Orion's Belt were “taken apart”.
Hans: I suggest you post your own links to the Hall of Ma’at simple to do as you’ve done it before.
SC: Let’s see it, Hans. The Board is waiting.
Hans: The board? You mean you, yourself and your ego,
Hans: By the way Scott the fact you cannot post a critical part of your idea, says volumes about the quality of your work. Why not post the actual transciptions and not just Alfreds interpretation?
Hans: What is it that you don't want us to see?
Hans: Failure to provide a scan is damning,
Hans...acting like its okay is a sign of you hiding something.
skepticwiki.org...
Hancock’s own original contribution to pseudohistory is his idea of precessional dating. This assumes as axiomatic that many ancient monument complexes were laid out so as to represent constellations of stars, a notion for which there is not a shred of historical evidence.
Assuming this to be so, we take a set of ancient monuments (say, the pyramids) and decide what group of stars their layout most resembles (Orion’s belt).
The resemblance is not exact. This is where “precession” comes in. The arrangement of the constellations as seen from the Earth changes over time, and it is easy to obtain programs for your home computer which can show you what the night sky looked like at various times in the past. So in order to find when the pyramids were built, it is only necessary to find out when the pattern made by Orion’s belt in the sky is exactly the same as the pattern made by the pyramids on the ground.
Unfortunately, the answer is “never”, so you do the next best thing and find when the two patterns were the most similar. Then you conclude that this is when the pyramids were built.
If your conclusion disagrees with all the historical and archaeological evidence, you are to be congratulated --- you have proved all the evidence wrong. Hancock’s opinion of real archeological evidence is summed up by his extraordinary declaration that: “My reservations about radiocarbon will continue to apply to sites that are primarily megalithic and that […] demonstrate alignments older than the radiocarbon dates”. How graciously he agrees not to quarrel with carbon dating --- unless, by some chance, it should disagree with his own methods! So historians consider his method to be bunk, because it disagrees with all known history; and Hancock considers history to be bunk --- for exactly the same reason.
As with numerology, the problem with this method is that Hancock allows himself way too much latitude. For example:
In the case of the pyramids, he allows the pyramids to represent a mirror image of the constellation as it appears in the sky.
To stay with the example of the pyramids, he has a whole skyfull of stars to choose from, and only three buildings to match to any group of stars. It would be strange if he couldn't find a rough resemblance somewhere in the night sky.
He doesn’t even have to find a match to an entire constellation --- he claims that the pyramids represent Orion’s belt, but his scheme does not require him to find other monuments in the Giza burial complex representing Orion’s trousers.
The match he seeks can be as far back in time as he chooses, for his results do not have to agree with history or even with paleontology --- indeed, from his point of view, the greater the discrepancy, the better.
As we have noted, he is merely looking for a best fit, not an exact match. The best fit he can come up with for the pyramids is way below the accuracy with which each individual pyramid is aligned to the four points of the compass. Now if you allow the monumental architects any arbitrary degree of imprecision, then the method would be worthless even if the underlying axiom (that buildings represent stars) was perfectly correct.
He allows himself to discover in the East maps of constellations only traditional in Western astrology.
He feels free to pick and choose, from any complex of monuments, which are to represent stars and which are to be ignored. In the case of the pyramids, the reason for his choice is obvious and excusable: they are the most prominent objects in the Giza funary complex. In other cases, he seems to have gone by the principle that he can select buildings that resemble, in their layout, the stars of some constellation, while ignoring the ones that don’t agree with this interpretation.
Okay boys, enough of that...
Hans: What is it that you don't want us to see?
Hans: Failure to provide a scan is damning,
Hans: Its always fun to deal with a one topic fanatic!
SC: Are you now suggesting Aldred is a liar?
Hans: I'm suggesting it is very very odd that you refuse to provide a scan - no logical reason for it don't your think
Hans: What is it that you don't want us to see?
SC: Eh? Nothing at all. I have given you my source – even down to the page number.
Hans: Odd this is a website, you've had your idea for years and have always refuse to provide it. The question is why?
SC: Go check it out for yourself if you think I am hiding something. You know the page number – you have all the info you need.
Hans: I'm in a hotel room in Manama care to point to the library that would have it –
Hans: however you must already have it but like a difficult child refuse to present it.
Hans: Failure to provide a scan is damning,
SC: We really are grasping at anything now, aren't we, Hans. I'm sure you know where your local library is.
Hans: Its your idea Scott why should I have to provide your proof for you - what a weird position to take
SC: I have nothing to hide.
Hans: Actually you do you are hiding the translation of the inscriptions you say the secondary source is commenting on. Why refuse to provide the primary source if it supports your position? Your a Funny guy?
JW: I trust Scott's opinion on this - do you agree with this websites analysis of the pyramids matching the Nile River as if it were the Milky Way?
SC: So it would seem, yes. The Edfu Building Texts tell us quite clearly that the AEs built their temples according to architectural plans that came to them in a codex from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep. I do not consider it unreasonable to consider that this could refer to a plan of a particular group of stars in the heavens i.e. Orion’s Belt.
SC: Well what is clear from the Edfu Building Texts is that architectural plans of some kind (a ‘codex’) was apparently passed down over time and that Imhotep initiated the implementation of these plans by constructing the first pyramid, the Step Pyramid at Saqqara.
Hans: You appear to have no evidence to support your claim regarding the Edfu building text.
Hans: I suggest you do some real research, come back, post the evidence then we can evaluate it.
Hans:At this moment your claim is debunked and unaccepted. Remember what thread this is
You have told this Board that my new evidence was "taken apart" and "convincingly debunked"