> A very apt post title indeed - as a book you have
> not read yet has got you clucking and fussing and
> pulling at your feathers like an old boiler hen.
> Seriously, stop flapping and squawking for a
> minute, or you'll end up laying an egg.
> I can't argue with you - I haven't read the book
> I don't know fully what's in it - I haven't read
> the book yet.
> Beyond the published blurb, I don't know what
> sources or evidence is going to be used. I've
> seen what Scott has written on this forum on
> elsewhere - but I haven't read the book yet.
> I don't know if it will good. Yes, I'm looking
> forward to it. I think it *might* be a
> gamechanger - I certainly feel that it's high time
> someone came along and washed away the mess left
> by Sitchin (and exploited by traditionalists ever
> since) and put forward a *comprehensive* case for
> the prosecution on this topic - but it might be
> garbage, it might be a disaster, you might be able
> to pick it apart and expose it as worthless junk,
> but I don't know - because I haven't read the book
> I haven't read the book yet. So I cannot judge it
> yet. I know what has written in the past but I do
> not exactly what he has written in this book. I
> cannot judge the future based on what I know from
> the past - that is not methodology, it is
> prejudice, it is premature confirmation bias, it
> is assumption.
> Assumption. This whole thread is a maelstrom of
> angry, confused, outraged assumption, poisoned by
> personal dislike.
> Take a chill pill. Enjoy the summer. Wait till
> the book comes out - remember this is *not*
> alternate history, this is about a controversy in
> mainstream history, which is what makes it so
> fascinating. It won't validate or invalidate SC's
> tombs/seedvault theories - which why I think it is
> rightly in a completely separate book. It is an
> important historical question and Scott's case
> will be out there in print for the whole world to
> see and judge; if he is exposed as a fool, it will
> no doubt be party time on here.
> But maybe just hang fire till you read the damn
> thing first eh?
> That's all I can say. It will all come out in the
> wash, one way or another.
> I'll leave with one prediction though. I'm not a
> betting man, but if I were... now that this is
> once more a "commercial" subject, my money would
> be on Robert Bauval rushing out a counter-argument
> book this Autumn.
> You heard it here first! :-)
> Cheers all for now and take care.
You completely missed my point....did you even read my post?
I suggest, yet again, that you read SC's LAST book, (he exposed himself as a fool).
Campbell's Chamber roof blocks are Tura Limestone until proven otherwise.
THE Cartouche in Campbell's Chamber IS Authentic, as are ALL other RC's Glyphs, until proven otherwise.
"This Forgery 'theory' has more holes than a sieve basket."