> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > Merrell Wrote:
> > > Audrey Wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > >
> entific study of languages.
> > >
> > > Martin has studied linguistics in the context
> > > cognitive science. He would not claim,
> > > that this makes him a linguist. He has
> > > contributed to projects in natural language
> > > processing, but, again, would not claim that
> > > makes him a computational linguist.
> > >
> > > His interest in Egyptology is purely amateur,
> > > he has never claimed otherwise.
> > >
> > > Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald don’t actually
> > > Martin a linguist as such. They call him a
> > > “researcher”, a catch-all often applied
> > > those on the “alternative” side, who
> > > lack formal credentials in the topics they
> > > discuss.
> > Nevertheless they use Martin Stower, who it
> > transpires is non credentialed and "purely
> > and has never claimed otherwise", in order to
> > buttress and underpin their argument.
> > Could this be considered somewhat disingenuous?
> No, John, they use me as a source of arguments and
> they acknowledge me as the source of these
> arguments. They present the arguments and leave
> the rest to the reader. They do not call me an
> “expert” and there is no appeal to authority
> (as noted below)—whereas you’ve made it
> abundantly clear here that an appeal to authority
> is precisely what Creighton has produced and this
> is how you see it yourself.
Which is exactly what Scott has done ..
He's identified and recognised an "expert". The one and only "expert" in the field as far as I am aware. (myself)
The expertise and method has been described, leaving the "ordinary reader" free to carry out their own analyses and draw there own conclusions.
Time and time again we say carry out your own analyses and draw your own conclusions.
How many times do we need to repeat it?
> > > > What credentials does Stower have making
> > > > opinion believable?
> > >
> > > What credentials does Scott Creighton have
> > > make his opinion believable?
> > In terms of the brush stroke issue, Scott has
> > credentials whatsoever. It is for this reason
> > he very wisely sought the advice and opinion of
> > fully credentialed and degreed expert in brush
> > stroke sequencing.
> > One Snape-Ellison M.A.
> Fully credentialed and degreed expert in brush
> stroke sequencing!
The FIRST and ONLY fully degreed expert in brush stroke sequencing in this field. The practice of sequencing of brush strokes.
It seems that Egyptology has failed to identify this analytical process.
Which I'm fully prepared to share, so that "ordinary readers" can carry out their own analyses and draw their own conclusions.
> Most of us have worked this stuff out before the
> age of five,
> d you’re trying to con us that it’s
> specialised, esoteric knowledge which requires
> credentials to comment on?
> So, will you be showing us your published work on
> [i]brush stroke sequencing[/i] in the work of
> Roger Hilton (say)?
> Will you be showing us some of your paintings?
Why? What do my paintings have to do with anything?
> Past time for “the emperor has no clothes” on
> this one.
Ridiculous statement. The "clothes" have been demonstrated in the methodology.
The "clothes" have been freely given away and are free for anyone who cares to use them.
> And, let me remind you, Scott Creighton has no
> credentials in any of the stuff he talks about.
Were talking about ME, the one and only expert in brush stroke sequencing. Scott had the intelligence to seek expert advice on issues outside of his knowledge base and field.
A fact which is being fully and ably demonstrated here by yourself. He sought the advice of an expert.
> > > What credentials does Graham Hancock have
> > > make his opinion believable?
> > Again Graham Hancock actively and constantly
> > the advice of credentialed experts and
> > specialists.
> I’ve done some of that myself.
Good for you ..
> As for Graham Hancock, would you like to give an
> example? He’s clearly selective in which
> experts and specialists he believes and which not.
> What credentials does he have to make this
The professional integrity of GH is not the issue here.
> If the books are just compilations of what
> credentialed experts and specialists say,
> where’s the room for Graham Hancock?
Who said they were .. JUST....
> Who, let me remind you, has no credentials in any
> of the stuff he talks about. Pretty dumb to do
> this huffing and puffing about credentials on
> Graham Hancock’s Message Board!
> > > Martin's approached the Khufu forgery
> > > much as a journalist would. He read the
> > > made sure he understood it, then explained it.
> > > Where possible, he's run it past qualified
> > > Egyptologists. If people are persuaded by
> > > arguments, it’s because they follow them in
> > > detail and exercise their intelligence. No
> > > 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
> > usually by brush)
> > Since the dawn of Egyptology I am not aware of
> > 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
> > author to employ a/the specialist in this
> But John, most of us have applied paint with a
> brush by the age of five! Remember?
Yes straightforward and easy to understand isn't it? Beautiful simplicity.
Which begs the question why hasn't Egyptology and those such as yourself not already recognised it and were totally unaware of it until I was gracious enough to bring it to your attention.
In fact even within this post you are questioning its viability.
It seems to have caused quite a stir hasn't it.
> Do readers need higher degrees in Fine Art to
> follow the argument? No? Then it can’t be that
> esoteric. On the contrary, it’s precisely an
> appeal to common experience which does not require
> a specialist at either end. What we have here is
> an argument from authority con job and nothing
No it does not require a degree in Art to follow the argument, but it seems that it did require a degree in Art and expertise in Art to bring the process and method to the attention of one and all, including yourself.
Now that you have been made aware of it, by myself, yours truly.
You now appear to be quite upset and resentful of this revelation.
I'm not sure that this genie is going to go back into the bottle.
Especially in view of the amount of bandwidth you seem to be dedicating to making the world at large aware of it.
Thank you ..
> And you’re dead wrong about being first to
> “recognise the potential and utilise this
> methodology”. Houdin commented on the brush
> sequence—and one or two calligraphers were
> discussing the material on Unexplained Mysteries
> in the context of their interest.
Good for them.. Not quite the same application is it?
The method has been in use for at least a century.
As far as I am aware I am the first to apply it to the cartouche in question.
I know of no other reference to this method being applied to this issue.
> Heard of palaeography? You think you have
> anything on specialists in hieratic or demotic?
This has nothing at all to do with the reading of signs and symbols.
It is totally about the physical process of the application of paint to a surface... Painting..
> > This is very similar to the Schoch/Sphinx
> > scenario, where it was argued that Schoch's
> > of egyptological credentials somehow precluded
> > from commenting on the sphinx erosion patterns.
> > In that egyptological erosion somehow differed
> > from geological erosion.
> And other geologists differed, so don’t regard
> this as a done deal which can make your point.
Who said that it was a done deal .?? It's an analytical process applied to a problem.
> > > > So far as I know he has no training,
> education, or
> > > > 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
> > > stating that Martin has a professional
> interest in
> > > cognitive science; and, as I stated above,
> > > studied linguistics in that context.
> > >
> > > Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald don't call him an
> > > “expert” as such, or ask people to accept
> > > 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.
> Quote please.
Page 101 "Giza the Truth"