Originally posted by Scott Creighton

SC: Well actually, that is not in fact the case. A statement was made that the pyramids were tombs. I merely asked for specific, empirical, unequivocal evidence that proves that contention (with particular regard to the pre-fifth dynasty pyramids). I wouldn't have thought that was too much of a problem to those of that particular mindset since the statement that the Great Pyramid was a tomb was so emphatic and left no room for doubt.

Because one of your 'proofs' will be your own idea about why and how the pyramids came into being. However, please show evidence that 'that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt' that it is pre-fifth dynastic

Since when did my having my own ATS Forum exclude me from posting in other ATS Forums? Do explain. Or is it just the 'thought police' who would rather I did not ask relevant and pertinent questions in Forums outwith my own?

More like the boredom patrol noting your need to constantly bring up your pyramid idea - which you are free to do at anytime and on any forum, we to are allowed our opinions are we not?

SC:...that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt ....

Hans: lol

I do not see how your complete failure to provide a single link in response to my very reasonable question should result in a simple "lol".

Because you are the one who will determine what a 'shadow of a doubt means', which earns a lol; while you are at it please prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that:

That you are Scott Creighton
Unicorns don't exist
Luxembourg didn't secretly started WW1
That drinking water doesn't cause death

We look forward to YOU starting your tread on pyramid age and if I may ask please put in the criteria for 'proving something beyond any shadow of a doubt'. I'm sure if you show Harte and the rest of us evidence (beyond just denying the existing evidence). I'm sure that after you post this evidence the consensus of science on the age of the pyramids will be altered....

Added: Scott could you tell us what Harte SHOULD have written? Write out if you would what the appropriate reply should have been, give us a direct example.

Once in an increasingly unusual blue moon, a thread comes along on ATS that ISN'T the usual, contrived, "new age", incoherent, illegible, undocumented, inane, asinine, pseudo-scientific, matter-of-fact bull# "opinion" that we are subjected to hourly.

This is one of those threads.

S&F


EDIT: At least your presentation of evidence was thorough. You then get into making arguments on the assumption that aliens both exist, and were aware of Earth.

Originally posted by inivux
Once in an increasingly unusual blue moon, a thread comes along on ATS that ISN'T the usual, contrived, "new age", incoherent, illegible, undocumented, inane, asinine, pseudo-scientific, matter-of-fact bull# "opinion" that we are subjected to hourly.

Except for the psuedoscience part, you'd be right.

Harte

Originally posted by Hanslune
Originally posted by Scott Creighton

SC: Well actually, that is not in fact the case. A statement was made that the pyramids were tombs. I merely asked for specific, empirical, unequivocal evidence that proves that contention (with particular regard to the pre-fifth dynasty pyramids). I wouldn't have thought that was too much of a problem to those of that particular mindset since the statement that the Great Pyramid was a tomb was so emphatic and left no room for doubt.

Hans: Because one of your 'proofs' will be your own idea about why and how the pyramids came into being.

SC: But we are not discussing my theories regarding the pyramids. How many times must I say that to you? I shall type this slowly for you - we are discussing the statement Harte made, to wit, "THE GREAT PYRAMID COULDN'T HAVE BEEN A POWER PLANT BECAUSE IT WAS A TOMB." (Underline mine). Note the absence of any qualifier in Harte's statement. He is quite emphatic - "The Great Pyramid ... was a tomb." What evidence is there that allows Harte to be so emphatic and unequivocal in his pronouncement? Please present a link to such unequivocal proof.

Hans: However, please show evidence that 'that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt' that it is pre-fifth dynastic.

SC: See above. We're presently discussing Harte's emphatic statement.

SC: Since when did my having my own ATS Forum exclude me from posting in other ATS Forums? Do explain. Or is it just the 'thought police' who would rather I did not ask relevant and pertinent questions in Forums outwith my own?

Hans: More like the boredom patrol noting your need to constantly bring up your pyramid idea -

SC: Let me repeat once again to you - this is not about my theories. I am seeking unequivocal evidence to support Harte's unequivocal statement that, "The Great Pyramid... was a tomb." Please present it.

Hans: ...which you are free to do at anytime and on any forum, we to are allowed our opinions are we not?

SC: Good to see that you see sense at last and recognise my absolute right to post in this Forum as well as any others I choose to.

SC:...that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt ....

Hans: lol

SC: I do not see how your complete failure to provide a single link in response to my very reasonable question should result in a simple "lol".

Hans: Because you are the one who will determine what a 'shadow of a doubt means', which earns a lol;

SC: I think most people understand what the term "shadow of a doubt" means. And in the context of this current discussion, it corresponds to Harte's emphatic, beyond a shadow of a doubt statement, "The Great Pyramid.... was a tomb." What evidence is there that allows Harte to make a statement where there can be no shadow of a doubt in his proclamation?

Hans: while you are at it please prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that:

That you are Scott Creighton
Unicorns don't exist
Luxembourg didn't secretly started WW1
That drinking water doesn't cause death

SC: Evasion. Please answer my question above and in the previous post. Surely it can't be too difficult since the statement made by Harte was so emphatic - "The Great Pyramid... was a tomb." No qualifier in there. Such a confident and emphatic statement must surely mean there is evidence aplenty to prove the statement unequivocally. Let's see it.

Hans: We look forward to YOU starting your tread on pyramid age and if I may ask please put in the criteria for 'proving something beyond any shadow of a doubt'. I'm sure if you show Harte and the rest of us evidence (beyond just denying the existing evidence). I'm sure that after you post this evidence the consensus of science on the age of the pyramids will be altered....

SC: Evasion once again. Please answer my question above and in the previous post. Surely it can't be too difficult since the statement made by Harte was so emphatic - "The Great Pyramid... was a tomb." No qualifier in there. Such a confident and emphatic statement must surely mean there is evidence aplenty to prove the statement unequivocally. Let's see it.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Howdy Scott

Waiting to see you start your thread which include the criteria for how we determine, 'shadow' although I noted you have changed the word to another - we have side bets on how long it will take you to bring in your pyramid idea.

So why won't you start a thread on this? Do you actually like disrupting other people's threads?

Originally posted by Hanslune

Howdy Scott

Waiting to see you start your thread which include the criteria for how we determine, 'shadow' although I noted you have changed the word to another - we have side bets on how long it will take you to bring in your pyramid idea.

So why won't you start a thread on this? Do you actually like disrupting other people's threads?

Hello Hans,

SC: Evasion once again. But you ought to know me better by now, Hans. I am not so easily distracted by your nonsense.

Now, please answer my question above and in the previous post. Surely it can't be too difficult since the statement made by Harte was so emphatic - "The Great Pyramid... was a tomb." No qualifier in there. Such a confident and emphatic statement must surely mean there is evidence aplenty to prove the statement unequivocally. Well, let's see it.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton


SC: No evidence then? Why am I unsurprised?

You are not surprized because you refused to set up a thread to discuss it and you set up a unreachable unscientific standard that must be met and refused to provide the criteria how this 'standard' would be met.

Ashamed of yourself ? You should be.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Scott Creighton


SC: No evidence then? Why am I unsurprised?

You are not surprized because you refused to set up a thread to discuss it and you set up a unreachable unscientific standard that must be met and refused to provide the criteria how this 'standard' would be met.

Ashamed of yourself ? You should be.

edit on 15/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Hello Hans,

SC: As you well know, here on ATS it is rather frowned upon to start up a new thread on topics that have already been discussed. That is why I asked you - in the first instance - for some links to this evidence that may have already been posted here on ATS that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "the Great Pyramid... was a tomb" as stated by Harte. Are you saying then that no such unequivocal evidence has ever been posted here on ATS that you could point me to? Given Harte's emphatic, unqualified statement, "the Great Pyramid... was a tomb", one would think references to such emphatic evidence would already have been posted here on ATS over the years to which you could post some links to.

Harte made the emphatic, unqualified statement. You seem to back his assertion. I am merely asking (and have for a number of posts now) for some links to the evidence that allows such conviction.

Surely a few links to such emphatic evidence isn't beyond you?

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

The reason you don't get a reply, Mr. drama queen is I will not post off topic material in this thread - Period. If you are unwilling to start a new thread - I cannot help you.

From Scott earlier;

Sorry OP - I do not mean to take your thread off-track

.

But you have - repeatedly

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

The reason you don't get a reply, Mr. drama queen is I will not post off topic material in this thread - Period. If you are unwilling to start a new thread - I cannot help you.

edit on 15/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

SC: There's no "drama" at all - just a simple request for you to point me (and any others) to unequivocal evidence that might be elsewhere on ATS. And this request can hardly be considered off-topic since, at its core, Harte's statement asserts that the theory presented in the OP of this thread must be wrong because "...the Great Pyramid... was a tomb." I would rather think that the OPr will also wish to see the evidence that apparently so emphatically debunks his own theory. So, it is perfectly on-topic that you (at least) present links to this unequivocal evidence so that I and all those who have been following the OP's argument can then go and follow the counter-argument, assess the evidence presented to see if it does indeed permit Harte to have made such an emphatic statement.

Don't be so coy. Why are you being so difficult? Why won't you show us this counter evidence? I am only asking for a couple of links. Come on now - that cannot be too difficult for you at all.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Learn to read Mr. Drama Queen and stop disrupting this thread.

I've made my last statement on this matter- the failure is your fault.

If you don't know how to post a thread I'd be glad to provide you a link on how to do it.

lol

END

Hello Hans,

Hans:Learn to read ...

SC: Alas, Hans - insults simply won't crack it.

Hans: Mr. Drama Queen .....

SC: Name-calling won't crack it either.

Hans...and stop disrupting this thread.

SC: My question is not disrupting the thread. That particular door was opened when Harte emphatically claimed "...the Great Pyramid... was a tomb." Since he opened that particular door, others are then allowed in to ask for the emphatic evidence to support the emphatic claim. Saying it is a tomb will not make it a tomb. To do that you require conclusive evidence.

Hans: I've made my last statement on this matter- the failure is your fault.

SC: I am sure in Hans' World you truly believe that. The rest of us, however, can easily see where the disruption to the thread has come from - your continued refusal to post a single link to the emphatic evidence that would prove the emphatic statement made by Harte in THIS thread.

Hans: If you don't know how to post a thread I'd be glad to provide you a link on how to do it.

SC: You can try and pass as many insults as you like - they simply do not crack it. I am way too long in the tooth to be sidetracked by such. Evidence, Hans, evidence! I think in future it might serve you better if you are not prepared to put up then - for your sake and ours - you just shut up. Save us all a lot of bother trying to pull your teeth out in getting a simple answer from you.

Hans: lol

SC: As I told you already - "lol" is no substitute for evidence.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton