> Audrey Wrote:
Giza the Truth (Lawton &
> > Virgin Books, 2000 p.101:
> > Linguistic and interpretation issues. Turning
> > the linguistic as opposed to practical issues,
> > these have been thoroughly refuted by a British
> > researcher, Martin Stower on his
> > web site.
> > Stower is a linguist?
> This is a term often (although not wholly
> accurately) used to describe people who speak
> several languages, when it's more properly the
> entific study of languages.
> Martin has studied linguistics in the context of
> cognitive science. He would not claim, however,
> that this makes him a linguist. He has
> contributed to projects in natural language
> processing, but, again, would not claim that this
> makes him a computational linguist.
> His interest in Egyptology is purely amateur, and
> he has never claimed otherwise.
> Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald don’t actually call
> Martin a linguist as such. They call him a
> “researcher”, a catch-all often applied to
> those on the “alternative” side, who usually
> lack formal credentials in the topics they
Nevertheless they use Martin Stower, who it transpires is non credentialed and "purely amateur and has never claimed otherwise", in order to buttress and underpin their argument.
Could this be considered somewhat disingenuous?
> > What credentials does Stower have making his
> > opinion believable?
> What credentials does Scott Creighton have which
> make his opinion believable?
In terms of the brush stroke issue, Scott has no credentials whatsoever. It is for this reason that he very wisely sought the advice and opinion of a fully credentialed and degreed expert in brush stroke sequencing.
One Snape-Ellison M.A.
> What credentials does Graham Hancock have which
> make his opinion believable?
Again Graham Hancock actively and constantly seeks the advice of credentialed experts and specialists.
> Martin's approached the Khufu forgery question
> much as a journalist would. He read the material,
> made sure he understood it, then explained it.
> Where possible, he's run it past qualified
> Egyptologists. If people are persuaded by his
> arguments, it’s because they follow them in
> detail and exercise their intelligence. No appeal
> to authority is made.
All well and good, the question arising are egyptologists the best people to comment on painting? (the application of paint to a surface, usually by brush)
Since the dawn of Egyptology I am not aware of any egyptologist even recognising the potential of this methodology.
Up until now it has gone un-noticed. Hidden in plain sight.
As far as I am aware I am the first to both recognise the potential and utilise this methodology.
As far as I am aware Scott Creighton is the first author to employ a/the specialist in this field.
This is very similar to the Schoch/Sphinx scenario, where it was argued that Schoch's lack of egyptological credentials somehow precluded him from commenting on the sphinx erosion patterns.
In that egyptological erosion somehow differed from geological erosion.
> > So far as I know he has no training, education,
> > field experience that would qualify him on
> > "Linguistic and interpretation issues".
> > No training in hieroglyphs or languages.
> A post in the other thread linked to a webpage
> stating that Martin has a professional interest in
> cognitive science; and, as I stated above, he's
> studied linguistics in that context.
> Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald don't call him an
> “expert” as such, or ask people to accept what
> he says on that basis. On the contrary, they
> summarise the relevant arguments (pp. 100–103 in
> the hardback edition) and leave the reader to
> decide on that basis.
They sought his expertise in that field and proclaimed so.
> > Remember, we can not give credit to internet
> > browsing, or stalking. Having a website does
> > make one an expert.
> See my comments above.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 28-Jun-16 09:42 by Jon Ellison.