> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > Martin Stower Wrote:
> > > No, John, they use me as a source of arguments
> > > they acknowledge me as the source of these
> > > arguments. They present the arguments and
> > > the rest to the reader. They do not call me
> > > “expert” and there is no appeal to
> > > (as noted below)—whereas you’ve made it
> > > abundantly clear here that an appeal to
> > > is precisely what Creighton has produced and
> > > is how you see it yourself.
> > Which is exactly what Scott has done ..
> Thanks for confirming.
> > He's identified and recognised an "expert". The
> > one and only "expert" in the field as far as I
> > aware. (myself)
> > The expertise and method has been described,
> > leaving the "ordinary reader" free to carry out
> > their own analyses and draw there own
> Well, John, if you’re the [i]one and only
> “expert” in the field[/i], who exactly is it
> who’s validating your expertise? Yourself?
> Where may we find your published work on the
> topic? Where may we find your name so much as
> mentioned in connection with it? And yet the
> phrase is out there and it’s
> [i]archaeologists[/i] talking about it:
> Looks like you need to get out there and stake
> your claim.
> > 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?
> > > Fully credentialed and degreed expert in
> > > stroke sequencing!
> > The FIRST and ONLY fully degreed expert in
> > stroke sequencing in this field. The practice
> > sequencing of brush strokes.
> So you keep saying. See above.
> > It seems that Egyptology has failed to identify
> > this analytical process.
> But archaeology has. See above.
> > I did.
> > Which I'm fully prepared to share, so that
> > "ordinary readers" can carry out their own
> > analyses and draw their own conclusions.
> So let’s see your dissertation, thesis,
> whatever. If not the full thing, the references
> or bibliography would be a start.
> > > Most of us have worked this stuff out before
> > > age of five,
> d you’re trying to con us that it’s
> > > specialised, esoteric knowledge which
> > > credentials to comment on?
> > >
> > > So, will you be showing us your published work
> > > [i]brush stroke sequencing[/i] in the work of
> > > Roger Hilton (say)?
> > >
> > > Will you be showing us some of your
> > Why? What do my paintings have to do with
> > anything?
> Well, duh. It would show us that you know
> something about brush work. All we have so far is
> your saying so.
> I notice you’ve bypassed the bit about published
> work. When may we expect to see it?
> > > Past time for “the emperor has no clothes”
> > > this one.
> > Ridiculous statement. The "clothes" have been
> > demonstrated in the methodology.
> > The "clothes" have been freely given away and
> > free for anyone who cares to use them.
> The methodology I’ve seen so far includes blurry
> enlargements and comments on my eyesight. Is this
> the kind of thing you submitted in fulfilment of
> the requirements of your degree?
> > > And, let me remind you, Scott Creighton has
> > > credentials in any of the stuff he talks
> > Were talking about ME, the one and only expert
> > 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
> > here by yourself. He sought the advice of an
> > expert.
> No, John, the comment being answered was about me
> and my credentials.
> It’s not all about you, you know.
> > > > > 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 ..
> Yes, John, it’s good for me and it more than
> meets your standard, as you think it merits praise
> when Scott seeks advice from people who just
> happen to be on the same message board.
> > > As for Graham Hancock, would you like to give
> > > example? He’s clearly selective in which
> > > experts and specialists he believes and which
> > > What credentials does he have to make this
> > > choice?
> > The professional integrity of GH is not the
> > here.
> And you’ve missed the point.
> > > 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....
> And you’ve missed the point.
> > > Who, let me remind you, has no credentials in
> > > of the stuff he talks about. Pretty dumb to
> > > this huffing and puffing about credentials on
> > > Graham Hancock’s Message Board!
> > Not relevant..
> Says you, having missed the point.
> > > But John, most of us have applied paint with
> > > brush by the age of five! Remember?
> > Yes straightforward and easy to understand
> > it? Beautiful simplicity.
> So much for the specialised knowledge and “one
> and only expert in the field”.
> > Which begs the question why hasn't Egyptology
> > those such as yourself not already recognised
> > and were totally unaware of it until I was
> > gracious enough to bring it to your attention.
> On the contrary, John, you brought nothing to my
> attention which I wouldn’t regard as
> platitudinous or wrong.
> What begs the question is your assumption that
> “Egyptology” hasn’t. Archaeology has, as
> noted above.
> > > Heard of palaeography? You think you have
> > > anything on specialists in hieratic or
> > This has nothing at all to do with the reading
> > signs and symbols.
> > It is totally about the physical process of the
> > application of paint to a surface... Painting..
> LOL! You don’t know what I’m talking about,
> do you?
> > > > They sought his expertise in that field and
> > > > proclaimed so.
> > >
> > > BS.
> > >
> > > Quote please.
> > Page 101 "Giza the Truth"
> Hardback or paperback—and where’s the quote?
All total pointless deflective bunkum typical of Stower.
If anyone would like to seriously discuss the technicalities of this methodology, "The sequential analyses of mark making" I may at some point in the future run a thread.
Scott Creighton may or may not include a section with regard to the contentious cartouche in his forthcoming book. We will just have to wait and see.
In the meantime I think the basic principles have been well enough described, and as I have stated on numerous occasions the "ordinary reader" should have little difficulty in carrying out a basic analyses for him or herself, and further be able to form their own conclusions.
The process application is not at all complex. It was simply a question of someone with the appropriate experience and education to identify it. Which in this case was me.
The photographs are readily available online. They are of more than adequate spatial resolution and bit depth for these purposes and using images from three totally independent platforms taken over a decade or so negates any possibility of optical or electronic distortion or interference.
Those opposed to the idea of "ordinary readers" using this analytical tool in order to carry out their own analyses and therefore forming their own conclusions may well have a vested interest in adopting that stance for reasons known only to themselves.
Good luck and have fun.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 28-Jun-16 15:30 by Jon Ellison.