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.
originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: Harte
... I would add a fourth and fifth possibility based on my brief exchanges over the past day:
4) Scott refuses to engage further into a juvenile exchange with Hanslune
5) Scott prefers to not reveal material from his most unfinished book prematurely (I believe he basically said as much in his reply)
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: Harte
... I would add a fourth and fifth possibility based on my brief exchanges over the past day:
4) Scott refuses to engage further into a juvenile exchange with Hanslune
5) Scott prefers to not reveal material from his most unfinished book prematurely (I believe he basically said as much in his reply)
Hello GuyinKY,
You nailed it. While my most recent book, 'The Secret Chamber of Osiris' (Bear & Co., 2014), concentrates on the quarry marks/cartouche in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, my forthcoming book, 'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co., Dec 2016), spends much of the book showing that the Khnum-Khuf cartouches in the lower chambers are most likely 19th century fakes. The evidence comes from many different sources and is highly compelling. That's about all I can say about it for the moment. I trust this answers everyone's questions.
Best,
SC
...The Evidence' (...), spends much of the book showing that the Khnum-Khuf cartouches in the lower chambers are most likely 19th century fakes....
St. Udio: Academics aside is it not fairly simple to date a stone carving/relief within a time frame of ----say 3,500 years as being a recent 'Kilroy was here' addition ?
"...they have analyzed samples of the cartouche of Khufu and reached the result, which is that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid and that the ink [paint] used in the cartridges [cartouches] to jot down details constructed the pyramid is not old, but the age of the pyramid itself is larger than life, cartouche centuries, which confirms that the pyramid is not due to Khufu ..." (My emphasis).
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
Hello GuyinKY,
You nailed it. While my most recent book, 'The Secret Chamber of Osiris' (Bear & Co., 2014), concentrates on the quarry marks/cartouche in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, my forthcoming book, 'Great Pyramid Hoax: The Evidence' (Bear & Co., Dec 2016), spends much of the book showing that the Khnum-Khuf cartouches in the lower chambers are most likely 19th century fakes. The evidence comes from many different sources and is highly compelling. That's about all I can say about it for the moment. I trust this answers everyone's questions.
Best,
SC
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
There was, however, one Arabic report by Dina Abdel-Alim of 'Day 7 Magazine', (The Cheops Lie) which claimed the paint fragments taken in 2012 by Erdmann and Gorlitz from Campbell's Chamber had been tested in a German radiocarbon dating laboratory (SGS) and that the paint was found to be only "centuries" old. You can read the article here (4th paragraph).
originally posted by: mstower
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
There was, however, one Arabic report by Dina Abdel-Alim of 'Day 7 Magazine', (The Cheops Lie) which claimed the paint fragments taken in 2012 by Erdmann and Gorlitz from Campbell's Chamber had been tested in a German radiocarbon dating laboratory (SGS) and that the paint was found to be only "centuries" old. You can read the article here (4th paragraph).
. . . and you’ve been pulled up before for citing this silly exercise in Arabic tabloid journalism, complete with rant about Jewish plots — which, by the way, isn’t even at that URL any more. Didn’t you check?
Doubtless this is indicative of the quality we may expect of your forthcoming book (if the last one wasn’t enough).
M.
originally posted by: mstower
originally posted by: mstower
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
There was, however, one Arabic report by Dina Abdel-Alim of 'Day 7 Magazine', (The Cheops Lie) which claimed the paint fragments taken in 2012 by Erdmann and Gorlitz from Campbell's Chamber had been tested in a German radiocarbon dating laboratory (SGS) and that the paint was found to be only "centuries" old. You can read the article here (4th paragraph).
. . . and you’ve been pulled up before for citing this silly exercise in Arabic tabloid journalism, complete with rant about Jewish plots — which, by the way, isn’t even at that URL any more. Didn’t you check?
Doubtless this is indicative of the quality we may expect of your forthcoming book (if the last one wasn’t enough).
M.
Here through the best efforts of Google Translate is what Creighton would have us rely on.
M.
These lies that tried German Stefan and his team recognized by boarding the cartouche of Cheops room and the theft of a small-sized sample of the cartouche of King Khufu and travel out to Germany and they analyzed there, and then they announced in Bjahh complete effrontery by video recorder to them that they analyzed samples from a cartouche of Cheops and reached the result is that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid and that the ink used in the cartridges to codify constructed pyramid details is not old, but Pyramid same age greater than the age of cartridges centuries, which confirms that the pyramid is not due to Khufu and Msheedah are ancient Jews because they were living in Egypt construction period Pyramid.
"That you’d end up a proselyte of Sitchin’s forgery claim was evident when you started your BS several years ago."
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: mstower
"That you’d end up a proselyte of Sitchin’s forgery claim was evident when you started your BS several years ago."
SC: Sitchin cetainly made the original claim--we all know that, Stower. But he most certainly didn't produce most of the evidence I will be presenting in my next book. But nice to see you are still here banging the drum for good old Colonel Vyse and his *ahem* 'discovery''; a 'discovery' presented to the world by a known fraudster and cheat and a discovery that has been accepted without any official modern scientific analysis of the paint in those chambers having ever been done.
SC
"I wonder what a good descriptor is for someone who claims to be an "Engineer" on their book blurb but actually runs an internet cafe?"
"Claims to be a "Engineer"..."
Describing you as an "engineer" on your book/bio seems to me to be fraudulent and cheating.
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: mstower
"That you’d end up a proselyte of Sitchin’s forgery claim was evident when you started your BS several years ago."
SC: Sitchin cetainly made the original claim--we all know that, Stower. But he most certainly didn't produce most of the evidence I will be presenting in my next book. But nice to see you are still here banging the drum for good old Colonel Vyse and his *ahem* 'discovery''; a 'discovery' presented to the world by a known fraudster and cheat and a discovery that has been accepted without any official modern scientific analysis of the paint in those chambers having ever been done.
That level of authentication is for the simple-minded and you are welcome to it. Most of the rest of us require a bit more hard evidence before coming to a conclusion on something. But hey-ho... whatever floats your boat.
SC
Only the hard of honesty would persist in this “known fraudster and cheat” BS (as detailed passim).
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Harte
"I wonder what a good descriptor is for someone who claims to be an "Engineer" on their book blurb but actually runs an internet cafe?"
SC: Why do you wonder about the fact that, as well as researching and writing books, I also own and operate a number of Internet Cafes across the UK? Is there some law/rule that states business people are not allowed to write books on ancient history? If so, do refer them to me.
I am very fortunate that I operate a highly successful UK business that allows me the financial freedom to pursue my real passion--which is researching and writing about ancient Egypt. You seem to have a problem with that--why? Do you also have a problem that Einstein states "Patents Clerk" on his CV?
"Claims to be a "Engineer"..."
SC: Not that it is any business of yours but yes, I am an 'Engineer' -- an ICT Network Engineer and have been for decades as well as being the IT Manager for a number of UK global companies and, as a result of that career, was able to travel all over the world (at my former companies' expense) and, in my spare time, was able to visit and research many of the world's most sacred sites. Are you calling me a liar? What evidence do you have that I am not an ICT Network Engineer? Suggest you tread very carefully.
SC
originally posted by: mstower
So, not a civil engineer. then. Thanks for confirming. I wonder why you found it so hard to say this, last time you were asked.
Personally, having put in the odd router and switch myself, I’ve always considered “network engineer” to be BS. My father was a real engineer, so I have some standards in these matters.
M.
Harte: The work I did to get there, and the things I did in my jobs, make me a little touchy on the subject as well.
originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: Scott Creighton
Wow Scott, I'd be flattered. Seems you have a pretty consistent fan base.
Rosinitiate: On topic: do any of your books actually touch on the viability of such a conspiracy? Meaning how many professionals/archeologists would have had to be in on the forgery in order for it to continue to propagate? There were a few well respected archeologists that gave creditability to these cartouche's at that time and continue to present.
Rosinitiate: Was there any doubt to Vyse's discovery at that time? Or was Stichin the first to even consider such a conspiracy?