Men Who Vandalized Great Pyramid To Prove 'Theory' Face Charges

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Howard-Vyse was in Egypt in 1842.

Hi Scott,

Do you have a reference for this? Does that source give the exact dates?

Thanks and regards,

Hooke

Hooke
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

Howard-Vyse was in Egypt in 1842.

Hi Scott,

Do you have a reference for this? Does that source give the exact dates?

Thanks and regards,

Hooke

Hi Hooke,

There are a couple of other things I need to check first with my source before commenting on this further but from what they tell me, it does appear as though Howard-Vyse was in Egypt in 1842. I will, of course, post more here on ATS when I have checked things out further.

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton

Hooke
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

Howard-Vyse was in Egypt in 1842.

Hi Scott,

Do you have a reference for this? Does that source give the exact dates?

Thanks and regards,

Hooke

Hi Hooke,

There are a couple of other things I need to check first with my source before commenting on this further but from what they tell me, it does appear as though Howard-Vyse was in Egypt in 1842. I will, of course, post more here on ATS when I have checked things out further.

Regards,

SC

Hi Scott,

Thanks very much indeed - that would be great.

Hooke

Scott Creighton

Hooke
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

Howard-Vyse was in Egypt in 1842.

Hi Scott,

Do you have a reference for this? Does that source give the exact dates?

Thanks and regards,

Hooke

Hi Hooke,

There are a couple of other things I need to check first with my source before commenting on this further but from what they tell me, it does appear as though Howard-Vyse was in Egypt in 1842. I will, of course, post more here on ATS when I have checked things out further.

Regards,

SC

Ah, yes, that well-known authority, An Unnamed Source.

Perhaps you should have checked before posting, but certainly your unnamed source has some explaining to do.

I am not holding my breath . . .

M.

reply to post by mstower


Hello mstower,

I'd appreciate some answers to a few questions relating to some of your comments from here, if you would be so kind.

MS: Before reading Sitchin, Allen already had a story of Humphries Brewer joining Vyse at Giza and later being invited by Lepsius to join his expedition. Notably absent from this story was any mention at all of the forgery idea.

SC: The "forgery idea" was "notably absent" from which story—Allen's Howard-Vyse story or his Lepsius story? Or, are you saying Allen’s 1954 logbook entry is untrue, that, in spite of vouching on live radio of the veracity of his family oral tradition of fraud by Howard-Vyse and his team at Giza, you claim Allen made no such forgery claim (in his logbook)? If that is what you are saying then who wrote the logbook page dated 9th Oct, 1954 (as reproduced in Sitchin’s 'Journey’s to the Mythical Past', p.31?) claiming "faint marks were repainted, some were new"?

MS: Then he [Allen] read a summary of Sitchin’s claims, in a column (“The Unexplained”) by one George Cunningham-Tee. After that, the forgery was part of the story.

SC: What exactly are you saying here? Part of whose story? According to Allen, his forgery story had been written down in his ham radio logbook by him in 1954, some 29 years before Cunningham-Tee published Sitchin's (quite separate) forgery claim in his weekly newspaper column. Both Sitchin and Allen present quite different evidence, different stories, relating to the same forgery allegation. Are you saying here that “After reading Sitchin’s forgery claim in Cunningham-Tee’s newspaper column, the forgery idea became part of [Allen’s] story”? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying Allen’s logbook entry which is dated 9th Oct, 1954 is untrue, that it’s a fabrication? If so, who fabricated it and what proof do you have to back up such an inference? Are you really making such an allegation even after Walter Allen had said that forgery by Howard-Vyse in the GP had been known in his family for 150 years? (Sitchin, 'Journeys', p.29 and apparently confirmed by Allen live on radio towards the end of 1983). Are you implying that Walter Allen lied and fabricated his logbook entry? If so, what evidence do you have to support that accusation? If not, then what exactly is it you are saying here?

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Creighton,

If you want to know what I’m saying, I suggest you read it.

I’ll remind you that we’re waiting for you to back up (in any way whatsoever) your claim (contradicting another poster, who wasn’t me, remember) that R. W. H. Howard Vyse was in Egypt in 1842. More than one poster has expressed an interest in the evidence for this claim.

I’ll remind you also that this is not the first time you’ve given this board a bum steer without explanation or apology.

Don’t imagine that you can dodge the question and sidetrack the discussion by snowing it with questions of your own (questions which you failed to ask when I made the post in the first place, but whose importance you have suddenly discovered, now that they serve a diversionary function).

I’ll consider answering your several questions when you answer the one you’ve been asked.

On consideration, Creighton has made it adequately clear here that he has no answer. He has no evidence of Howard Vyse in Egypt in 1842. All he has done is put his foot in his mouth again. Hence his resort to the banal diversionary tactic of throwing out a cloud of diversionary questions: squink.

Consider:

What evidence has Creighton ever had that Vyse perpetrated forgery?

What scruples have held him back from assuming this accusation as a default, which others are called on to disprove?

Where are his calls for Allen to be vindicated by proper scientific analysis of the original logbook entry?

Choice of which astronomical unit is best suited to measuring his double standard is left as an exercise for the reader.

M.

reply to post by mstower


Hello mstower,

MS: If you want to know what I’m saying, I suggest you read it.

SC: Given that I have asked some questions about your statements, that suggests I did in fact read what you wrote. Now, if I have misunderstood what you have said then that is an altogether different matter and one, I would suggest, that is incumbent upon you to explain where I have misinterpreted or misunderstood what you have written. I am not a mind reader. That is the approach I think most reasonable and responsible people would take. So please, do correct me in my understanding of what you have written.

MS: I’ll remind you that we’re waiting for you to back up (in any way whatsoever) your claim (contradicting another poster, who wasn’t me, remember) that R. W. H. Howard Vyse was in Egypt in 1842. More than one poster has expressed an interest in the evidence for this claim.

SC: Thank you for that but, as stated earlier, when I have further checked the claim with my source, I shall present it here on ATS. That checking is still on-going. But do not fret, I shall present it on my ATS forum in due course.

MS: I’ll remind you also that this is not the first time you’ve given this board a bum steer without explanation or apology.

SC: Well, it is disappointing that you should say that but it has not been my intention to do so. Sometimes though, admittedly, I do not present all the information I have simply because I am bound by my publisher not to do so. Not ideal I agree but there's not a lot I can do about it I'm afraid.

MS: Don’t imagine that you can dodge the question and sidetrack the discussion by snowing it with questions of your own (questions which you failed to ask when I made the post in the first place, but whose importance you have suddenly discovered, now that they server a diversionary function).

I’ll consider answering your several questions when you answer the one you’ve been asked.

SC: I think most readers of this thread understand what the main thrust of this particular issue is here—namely the question of Allen’s logbook claiming his great grandfather witnessed Howard-Vyse and his team perpetrating forgery in the GP. I am sure that most readers regard my much later comment about the possibility of Howard-Vyse having been in Egypt in 1842 as a side matter to the central question here. And I didn’t realize there was a time limit on responding to comments—when did that rule appear?

Alas, it seems we are at something of an impasse here. That is unfortunate as I am sure there are others here also who would like you to clarify your comments. I had asked you some reasonable questions relating to the comments made by you and you refuse to answer them simply because I have not yet responded to another poster on a separate, side issue. I do not see how you can conflate these two separate issues in order to try and justify your refusal to answer my very straightforward questions regarding your own comments. On that basis then I can only surmise that your unwillingness to answer my questions belies your inability to do so.

Ah well, such is life.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Actually, Creighton, most readers of this thread have understood all along that its focus is the recent actions of Erdmann, and Görlitz, and Höfer.

Have you forgotten already ?

A hint may be found in the heading.

M.

Scott Creighton
reply to post by mstower

 

On that basis then I can only surmise that your unwillingness to answer my questions belies your inability to do so.

This is particularly rich.

Creighton, what’s your evidence that Howard Vyse was in Egypt in 1842?

M.

Scott Creighton
reply to post by mstower

 

MS: I’ll remind you that we’re waiting for you to back up (in any way whatsoever) your claim (contradicting another poster, who wasn’t me, remember) that R. W. H. Howard Vyse was in Egypt in 1842. More than one poster has expressed an interest in the evidence for this claim.

SC: Thank you for that but, as stated earlier, when I have further checked the claim with my source, I shall present it here on ATS. That checking is still on-going. But do not fret, I shall present it on my ATS forum in due course.

Creighton,

You were confident enough of the claim to contradict another poster on the point.

Yet now, when challenged, it needs an indefinitely long checking procedure? Please.

Again:

What’s your evidence that Howard Vyse was in Egypt in 1842?

M.

reply to post by mstower


Hello mstower,

MS: You were confident enough of the claim to contradict another poster on the point.

SC: And when I have checked the evidence thoroughly myself then, hopefully, I shall be even more confident. But, of course, that remains to be seen.

MS: Yet now, when challenged, it needs an indefinitely long checking procedure? Please.

SC: I do not recall saying that my checking of my source would be “indefinitely”. But, as I am sure you must know, responsible research can take time, sometimes days, weeks, months and even years. But, as I have stated at least twice now, when I have completed my research into this, I shall most certainly post the outcome of my research in my ATS Forum. I can’t say fairer than that.

MS: What’s your evidence that Howard Vyse was in Egypt in 1842?

SC: Please see above.

Now, I cannot divulge any more information until such time as I have thoroughly checked out my source. But that is not your position. I have asked you to clarify a couple of comments you made in this thread which is entirely within your present powers to do so.

You conflate my position in response to one poster’s question with my subsequent questions to you in order to contrive some justification for you to not then answer my questions. I have to say, I do not think many on this Board will consider that a serious attempt to discuss matters openly and fairly. Indeed, I am sure there will be some here, including myself, who will consider your actions as nothing more than a cynical debating ploy better suited to the playground than a serious discussion Forum. Such reluctance to answer simple questions when it is entirely within your power to do so threatens to make a mockery of this Board.

For the sake of the Board, I think you should reconsider.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Scott Creighton


So, Creighton, was it responsible to make the claim you made here before (and not after) doing the relevant research?

The remaining squink is ignored.

M.

reply to post by mstower


Hello mstower,

I have to say, I am beginning to find your constant evasion quite tiresome as I am sure many others reading this silliness will be too. Your unwillingness to answer a couple of simple questions and to constantly divert away to side issues that have little to no relevance is the hallmark of the troll.

I ask again, for the sake of the Board, please answer my very reasonable questions to you here. Please respect the Board and stop evading my questions.

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton
reply to post by mstower

 

Hello mstower,

I have to say, I am beginning to find your constant evasion quite tiresome as I am sure many others reading this silliness will be too. Your unwillingness to answer a couple of simple questions and to constantly divert away to side issues that have little to no relevance is the hallmark of the troll.

I ask again, for the sake of the Board, please answer my very reasonable questions to you here. Please respect the Board and stop evading my questions.

Regards,

SC

Let me get this straight you make a claim than cant back it up and avoid answering it because you claim you may need to do research which in your own words you claim may take years. And you want to demand someone else answer your questions when you didnt even answer the questions to the statement you made? See your using a bad debating tactic.

Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent

than theres this one as well

Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is a form of tactic number 2 changing the subject; as stated above, it is prohibited by Robert’s Rule of Order 43; a typical tactic used against critics for example accusing them of being a troll.

Were you aware Graham Hancock changed his mind? In 1998 he said this

"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began.

So how did they forge marks when they couldnt get access to them? Thet could could they and also what was thought to be an error in the hieroglyphs was actual found to be correct which was unknown at the time of discovery. Than theres pottery located around the great pyramid. Nothing previous to Khufu i might add oh than theres the tombs of the builders who tell you what they did and carbon dating there as well. If you choose to ignore evidence or change the subject as in this case shows nothing other than you have a theory with no evidence. If you could prove the age of the pyramid you wouldnt need to attack others to do so. Oh and here ill back up my statements i make.

www.grahamhancock.com...

reply to post by dragonridr


Hello Dragonridr,

Good of you to join us--it has been a while.

Can I suggest that you perhaps go through the thread from where I made my entry and read all of the posts. I think you will find that your comments (above) are somewhat behind the game-line.

Regards,

SC

Just a thought: Every time I paint a house, wall or other object I almost always paint or write my name somewhere in a different color underneath what I paint. Quirky, but it is a way to sign what I do without ruining what I did.

Just because someone sees markings on a stone buried deeper in the structure does not mean that they were built at separate times. Maybe the deeper stone said "place next stone here".........

Its tottaly obvious that when they Pyramids were build, they were buld near or in water. There is erosion that proves there was water. So the truth is that the Pyramids and the Sphynx date back when Egipt was covered in water. If course this sounds rediculous to everyone althrough is 100% true. If they find solid proof, no one is gonna accept it, because if they accept it, they gonna turn into a laughting stock. I mean, who self respecting scientist will say that the Pyramids date from times where humans wouldnt even know how to do anything at all. And lets not forget that the pyramids are made with giant stone blocks and purfectly cut chambers inside, like with laser.

Scott Creighton
reply to post by mstower

 

Hello mstower,

I have to say, I am beginning to find your constant evasion quite tiresome as I am sure many others reading this silliness will be too. Your unwillingness to answer a couple of simple questions and to constantly divert away to side issues that have little to no relevance is the hallmark of the troll.

I ask again, for the sake of the Board, please answer my very reasonable questions to you here. Please respect the Board and stop evading my questions.

Regards,

SC

Thanks for confirming, in detail and at length, my implied prediction above:

Martin Stower

 

Don’t imagine that you can dodge the question and sidetrack the discussion by snowing it with questions of your own (questions which you failed to ask when I made the post in the first place, but whose importance you have suddenly discovered, now that they serve a diversionary function).

I’ll consider answering your several questions when you answer the one you’ve been asked.

On consideration, Creighton has made it adequately clear here that he has no answer. He has no evidence of Howard Vyse in Egypt in 1842. All he has done is put his foot in his mouth again. Hence his resort to the banal diversionary tactic of throwing out a cloud of diversionary questions: squink.

M.

Scott Creighton
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Can I suggest that you perhaps go through the thread from where I made my entry and read all of the posts. I think you will find that your comments (above) are somewhat behind the game-line.

It is very unkind of you to suggest to anyone that they read all your posts.

M.

dragonridr

 

Were you aware Graham Hancock changed his mind?

Hancock changed his mind, then he changed it again. He’s a very mercurial fellow.

M.