A question on the Jan 2015 book and whether it covers the seven other cartouches?

a reply to: mstower

We see here your usual method: come up with some arbitrary story of what people should have done (which would be presumptuous even if you knew the circumstances) and then fault them for not having done it. Why?

SC: It is perfectly clear why you witheld the remainder of Vyse's 16th June 1837 page--because you fully recognised and understood its devastating implications. That is why you witheld it from Frank Dornenburg--you couldn't even risk letting him see what else was on that page lest he might accidentally publish it on his web site which, as it happens, is precisely what he did. Lucky for you then that you hadn't given him the rest of the page back then, eh. And when everyone over on GHMB was discussing the little snippet posted by Frank, you didn't ever once crack a light as to what else was on that page. You began to discuss it ONLY AFTER I already had the page published in full in my previous articles. And I am absolutely certain that had I NOT had the entire content of that 16th June 1837 journal entry published, then you would STILL be sitting on your own copy and would have said precisely zip about it even unto this day.

Your actions in this entire affair are truly despicable and demonstrate someone who knew full well the implications of the rest of the material on that page. THAT is why you witheld it. As far as you were concerned the other information on that page simply had to be suppressed--at all costs. Your actions further demonstrates the pompous arrogance of a control freak. Knowledge really is power to you, Stower, isn't it. Well suck it up--you don't hold the keys to it anymore.

And yes, Stower. Your interpretation of the Vyse/Hill material is very different from mine. I have the ability to notice and uncover things that you completely overlook and that is because I analyse the material with the mindset and discipline of an engineer and not a blinded fanatic such as yourself.

Now, you've had your day in the sun. You've wasted enough of my time here already with your rampant buffoonery and I have a book to finish.

SC

originally posted by: mstower
“You gave Frank Doernenburg a copy of the full page of Vyse's 16th June 1837 private journal entry.” Groundless and wrong. I gave Frank Dörnenburg the image he used (not the full page) and I gave him the image in this sense: I shared a few, selected, scans of the pictorial details with a few selected people, via password-protected Web space, on the understanding that they were not to be published. Somewhere down the line, Frank published one of them. This was contrary to my intention and beyond my control. Frank also made an erroneous statement about the location of the journal. In Creighton’s weird world of fantasy, this (double) mistake on Frank’s part obliged me to splurge the results of my ongoing private research onto the Internet.

Correction: I find that I shared two images of the pictures on this page, one showing the full width of the page (and not the full page), the other a more detailed view (close-up) of the drawings at bottom left. As noted, I posted these images in password-protected Web space, on a page, scaled to fit on that page. This is why I needed a second image for detail.

Why did I not yadyadaya? I did.

Frank’s choice to publish one of the images and his choice of which one to publish were entirely his. I had nothing to do with it.

If we may believe Creighton’s own account of his “brilliant discovery”, it wasn’t even him came up with it. It was his wife. His insistence that I must have seen things in 1998 exactly as with prompting he now sees them and his ludicrously presumptuous appointment of himself as expert on what I should have done then are a comment on themselves and on him.

M.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
SC: It is perfectly clear why you witheld the remainder of Vyse's 16th June 1837 page--because you understood its devastating implications. . . .

See what I mean.

You really can’t have it both ways, Creighton. You can’t say “Oh look, what a briliiant discovery” — and then insist that all those years ago I saw things exactly as with prompting you now see them.

Students of rhetoric will note the loaded language: not sharing (or allegedly not sharing) is always “withholding” in Creighton’s world (his spelling corrected).

Why are you “withholding” all of those photographs of the journal, Creighton?

Measuring Creighton’s presumption quotient is left as an exercise for the reader.

M.

**ATTENTION***

We have decorum rules here at ATS and they are especially important in our invited guest forums, going forward there will be no more petty bickering or childish name calling.

Debating the theories and opinions discussed here in a civil manner is not only fine, it's encouraged as it keeps us all on our toes and sharp, demanding information or hammering on someone only to tear them down will not be tolerated.

This will be the one and only warning about this. If we can't act like gentlemen and gentlewomen of intelligence and civility we should avoid posting on ATS.

a reply to: mstower

If we may believe Creighton’s own account of his “brilliant discovery”, it wasn’t even him came up with it. It was his wife.

From my most recent book, The Secret Chamber of Osiris which my wife has proofread in draft and read several times in galley and final publication:

"Hour after hour we had been turning and photographing the pages [of Vyse's private journal], seeing nothing before us but an endless, meaningless scrawl. As Louise [my wife] turned one of the pages for me to photograph, I noticed that it had some hieroglyphics on it. Very few pages had such content, and so it was easy to catch the eye. But this wasn't just any old hieroglyphic marking that Vyse had written, it was the cartouche of Khufu... resting the camera on the table, I took a closer look at the cartouche Vyse had drawn and pointed something out to Louise. We both then looked at each other in stunned silence as the realization and enormity of what we were seeing sank in--for before us was compelling evidence that the cartouche of Khufu, which Vyse claimed to have discovered within the Great Pyramid, must, in fact, have been forged by him..." - Creighton, The Secret Chamber of Osiris, (Bear & Co., Dec 2014), p.116-117

In future please check first before spreading misinformation as I simply do not have the time or the will to have to keep correcting your errors of fact.

SC

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Trying to avoid the question I asked Scott? Tsk, tsk.....so are you saying your investigation was shoddy, incomplete or inept!

Lol

Hans,

Let us get a couple of things straight here, shall we.

You made a statement where I apparently claim to have "...done an exhaustive study of the markings in the relieving chamber..."? Having made that statement I asked you where I made such a statement.

You avoided answering. And you avoided answering because no such statement had, in fact, ever been made by me. This is nothing but complete fabrication on your part. In other words, Hans--making stuff up; telling porkies.

Instead, you simply reverse the question, now implying that I have barely done any research at all.

Hans, those are the tactics of a juvenile. If you want to have an adult discussion in my Forum then start behaving like an adult.

Now, you also seem to think you have some special right to have the content of my forthcoming book divulged to you in advance of the book's publication date (Dec 2014, not Jan 2015 as you stated in a previous post). I am afraid you may be disappointed to learn that you have no such special rights at all--none. So, if you want to learn of the extent of my latest research you will just have to get in the queue along with everyone else. I am not saying you have to buy the book--you don't. I will, as I normally do, be discussing the book fully here on ATS AFTER its publication and not a moment before. I hope that is now perfectly clear for you.

Now Hans--be careful the swing of the door doesn't smack you on the erse on your way out.

SC

Again Scott you have avoided the question again!

TWO DODGES

Here is the question you are avoiding - again

Do you discuss the seven other cartouches in the relieving chambers? If not why not?

I love how you are trying desperate to create a diversion - but it isn't going to work - we look forward to your third attempt at dodging.

Oh and as you seem to need help answering the question above here is how I would answer it;

1. Dear Hanslune, yes I did it is in chapter 7 page 328-378, with more material in Appendix IV. It is thoroughly covered,and footnoted and will be published in December of 2014.... yep that sure would spill all the beans wouldn't it? lol

2. Dear Hanslune, seven cartouches? Never heard of them, did I miss that in Sitchin's material???

3. Dear Hanslune, I didn't include them as I needed to keep my ideas simple, you must realize I'm writing for people who use to believe in Sumerian aliens and Atlantis, I cannot make it to complex or they might, heavens above, ask me questions.

4. ...ah cartouches? ah they weren't in context where I could use them to support my idea so I ignored them.

Hope that helps?

Hey Hans, #2 and 3 are hilarious.

#4 is on the money!


#5 'There are other Cartouches in there???...'

originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: Hanslune


Am I the only one that finds it ironic (or childish) that Harte and Hanslune are complaining that Scott hasn't answered their question all while they ignore his question as to where he made the statement that he had conducted "exhaustive studies?"

I don't think its an unreasonable request that Scott has made. After all, if you are going to quote someone and ask them to spend their time answering your questions it should be expected that he understands that you are quoting him correctly.

An outsider might come to a quick conclusion that maybe Hanslune has misquoted given the exchange we see here.

Maybe I'm just gullable.

Hans posted first w/ his question, and was ignored.

The 'exhaustive studies' bit is part of the dodge.

I don't see how or where Hans or Harte have misquoted, and they both deserve an answer.....

Maybe you are.

originally posted by: Harte
A minimum of 20 mg of organic material is required by most labs.

Please note that this doesn't mean 20 mg of ocher paint (which is not organic.)

It could be that the paint is oil-based, likely plant oil or animal fat if that's true, which would give a decent reading. It's just as likely that it's water based though, which would provide no information at all.

But imagine how much paint would have to be sampled.

Also consider that the paint itself has been sitting on and soaking into stone that contains a very large amount of carbon itself, which could easily skew the results.

Also, it would be preferable to get a sample from a site where hundreds or thousands of people with torches and lamps and candles have not come in and deposited new carbon on all the walls.

Unless a lab customer explicitly directs otherwise, no lab is going to give out results to anyone but the customer.

Hence, you have to believe the crooks that stole the paint samples.

Harte

Thanks for the common-sense post.

It's also possible that the AE added eggs or honey to some paints.
But I agree, it's most likely just a water-based paint, it having been used in a quarry setting.


Another possible contaminant is the salt contained in the limestone.


Hard to accept the idea that the crooks would steal, test, and then give honest and accurate test results...after all, they're 'investigative Archaeologists'.