Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Go to: Forum HomeBoardNew Topic

Pages: 12345...LastNext
Current Page: 1 of 19
Results 1 - 30 of 559
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Martin Stower Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Scott Creighton Wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------- > > And there is a reason why Vyse 'signed off' his > > description here without making any mention of any > > of the quarry marks that he subsequently mentions > > in his published account. And that re
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is not "HRaven", Stower. . . . No, Creighton, it isn’t. Not exactly. Vyse made a stab at suggesting the “HR” ligature which was painted on the beam in Campbell’s Chamber: So all of your guff about Vyse’s “H” is inapplicable. Your plonking pronouncements on writing which once you ad
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So in his self-published book, Martin Stower > states that Colonel Vyse's private field notes > "...were of no help in the research: even a > cursory inspection was enough to show me that the > handwriting was effectively illegible." Already answered: http://grahamhancock.com/phor
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And Stower - it's not "the marks". The word > (circled) is "to" as in "...the floor to > reverse of Lady Arbuthnot's ceiling..." and > "...cartouche to inscribe...". Says Mr Plonk. They’re abbreviations, Creighton—scarcely more that the letter “t”, and stil
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And there is a reason why Vyse 'signed off' his > description here without making any mention of any > of the quarry marks that he subsequently mentions > in his published account. And that reason is > related to the passage in Vyse's private account > which directly follows the passage above
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sure YOU would. > > Let's hear it. > > SC You’ve embarked on your Big Lie, trying to con the world (other than me) about the content of the journal. For that you need another Big Lie, trying to con the world (other than me) that you can read the journal and I can’t. Those links again:
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Something is very wrong here and I do not suspect > it is my interpretation of this page of Vyse's > private journal. You wouldn’t. I would. With reason: http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1181252,1181337 http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1181252,1181347 M.
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A quick perusal of Martin Stower's & Jean Coburn's > recent publication (The Strange Journey of > Humphries Brewer: Witness to a Forgery in the > Great Pyramid? Part 1: Investigating the > Legend states that Vyse’ private field notes > are unreadable and, as such, appear to have been >
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Methods of Ma'at #374 SNIP! > This is the level of your Maatzi defence, Avry? > > Behave yourself. > > SC What was it you wrote, Mr Creighton? “You’re becoming hysterical Mr Stower, and not in a funny way.” Physician, heal thyself. M.
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh, your counter-'argument' (your fantasy history) > is a busted flush. Mere huffing and puffing. You are projecting wildly. You are making stuff up which isn’t even open to being supported by evidence. > The simple fact is, Stower, all the necessary info Which is merely your usual “fact” blu
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MS: Notice how I refrained from harping on that gaffe? > > Probably because I had corrected it and thanked > you for pointing out the error. Well, actually, no. I simply thought better of the cheap shot. Learn and do likewise. M.
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wondered what the delay was in replying. Must > have taken you a wee while to sort this out, eh: Thank you for your concern. Fascinating though you imagine you are, I have other things to do. Once I’d started, it didn’t take long. I gather from this that it would have taken you longer. Clear on He
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MS: The semantics of CAPS is SHOUTING, newbie. > Didn’t you know? > > SC: Indeed I do. However, CAPS in 196px is > screaming, not merely shouting. Says you. My post, my semantics. Done in mockery of YOU and YOUR resort to CAPS, which we gather from this is done in deadly earnest. > Yo
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MS: Your attempt to replace the reality of > 1832 with a risible fantasia of “could bes” > has been debunked. > > SC: Not, it actually hasn't. Yes, actually, it has, with forensic exactness. Your modal con has been called. > And screaming won't change that. The semantics of CAPS is
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SC: In case it’s escaped your notice, Vyse > didn’t identify that cartouche (above) as > “...the Chephren of Herodotus and the Suphis II > of Manetho...”. So whatever point you are trying > to make here is entirely moot. In the course of editing, it did escape my notice. I’ve fixed it. Than
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Corpuscles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Scott Creighton Wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > SC: In 1832, from the scholarly texts available at > > that time, it was perfectly feasible for someone > > to work out that the cartouche of the builder of > > the second pyramid could not be the
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We'll have less of the racist comments, Stower. What we’ll have less of, Creighton, is false accusations. The joke is directed entirely at you: Scott-ish Common Sense. I contrast you with Thomas Reid. It went above your head, as we see. > And less of the bum-trumpetry would be good also. We se
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
R Avry Wilson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Scott Creighton Wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------- > > So if it could not belong to Chephren (the > > builder of the 2nd pyramid), then Who did the > > scholars in 1832 think that cartouche (Rosellini's > > #3) belonged to? > > > > What's
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RAW: Hint to all: Translations. > > SC: Indeed. Rosellini translated his cartouche #3 > as 'Brother of Suphis'. > > I have an older brother George. I'm quite glad my > parents didn't name me 'Brother of George' and > that they gave me a name of my very own. Naming > someone 'bro
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MA: That took you a while. Why not just skip the > drama and state your opinion right away? > > SC: My opinion on this was stated a number of > years ago - in HOAX. Same question, more pointedly. So, you stated the opinion you’ve just now stated on this board in HOAX? Could we have a pa
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SC: In 1832, from the scholarly texts available at > that time, it was perfectly feasible for someone > to work out that the cartouche of the builder of > the second pyramid could not be the > SenSuphis cartouche (Rosellini's #3). This > effectively placed Rosellini's cartouche #3 > (SenS
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RAW: You asked a question. It was answered. > > SC: No it wasn't. . . . Yes, it was. http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1075032,1180958 “You have told a pack of lies and I have answered that pack of lies by exposing that pack of lies.” http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,10750
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SC: Which you refuse to answer. Not even with a "I > don't know". You cannot even say that such is your > ego. Oh yes - you're quite full of the bravado and > the nasty little barbs when you think you know it > all, Mr Stower. But when someone comes along and > asks a simple questio
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SC: Unspecified? Let me clarify. We're talking > about the works of the scholars Wilkinson and > Rosellini, writing from 1828-1832 i.e. the state > of knowledge of Egyptology before Vyse went to > Egypt. Even stupider to make it named scholars, whose works may be consulted directly. Creight
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SC: To Rosellini & Wilkinson in 1832 I'm pretty > certain that 1837-1840 was still pretty much in > the future. So let us deal with the state of > knowledge as it was in their time, in 1832. Yeah, let’s do that—so stop referencing knowledge which is post-1832, such as the jug-and-ram cartouche
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Martin Stower Wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Scott Creighton Wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > SC: Irrelevant to Rosellini/Wilikinson in 1832. > > > > Well, thank you, Pope God, sitting on your
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SC: Irrelevant to Rosellini/Wilikinson in 1832. Well, thank you, Pope God, sitting on your throne. Whereas somehow what we know about Sensaophis/Sensuphis/Senesciufo being spurious—knowledge which is also post-1832—is somehow relevant, and the basis for an argument about what “scholars in 1832” thought?
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SC: So if 'Sensuphis' and 'Chephren' are not the > same this means they would each have different > Egyptian cartouches. Do you concur? Creighton, There is no such king as “Sensuphis”. The name is spurious. As Birch explained. Khnum Khufu and Khafre are different kings. Duh. M.
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We're discussing Rosellini's 1832 work, NOT > Birch's 1837-40 notes. > > Do keep up. > > SC So was Birch. His remarks are cogent. As for you, it took the thumbscrews to get you to quote Rosellini. Keep up yourself. M.
Forum: Mysteries
8 months ago
Martin Stower
Scott Creighton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes - we know this. > > Rosellini gives SCIUFO as Suphis = Khufu. > > Rosellini gives SenSCIUF (or SeneSCIUFO) as > 'Brother of Suphis' = Chephren. (Sensuphis or > Sensaophis according to Eratosphenes). > > How can SCIUF (or SCIUFO) translate into Egyptian > Cheops/Khufu AN
Forum: Mysteries
Pages: 12345...LastNext
Current Page: 1 of 19

Search Messages:


Search Authors:


Forums:


Options: